As a debater in college, I learned to build my arguments on logic, reason, and facts, but I also learned that trying to use logic with a liberal is like trying to change a flat tire with a shovel. It doesn’t work. Anybody who debates one will soon discover that to a liberal logic, reason, and facts are just inconvenient things that get in the way of their preconceived notions. Hence, the tendency of liberals to simply ignore these things as well as anything else that does not comport with their biased presuppositions.

I still debate liberals—more often than I would like—but I no longer try to convince or convert them. Better to simply let them look ridiculous tying themselves in knots with their self-inflicted contradictions—something they are quite good at. Be forewarned though, liberals have a high tolerance for their own stupidity. They are not easily embarrassed or shamed. In fact, they typically do not even see the illogic and contradictions in their convoluted thinking. In this column, I review some of the loony contradictions liberals can, with a straight face, espouse and often do.

I begin with the issue of life. Liberals are staunch advocates of protecting life, wildlife that is. But they aren’t too keen on protecting human life. For example, you can be sent to federal prison for two years and fined up to $250,000 for destroying an eagle’s egg, but there is no punishment—not even a slap on the hand—for destroying an unborn human baby in its mother’s womb. I have pointed out this and similar contradictions about the issue of life to liberals for years, but have never had even one admit to any contradiction in protecting wildlife while killing human life. Somehow in their muddled minds an eagle’s egg is a baby eagle to be protected, but an unborn baby is just tissue. How would you like to be trapped in a situation in which the only person who can save you is a liberal, but to save you he has to use logic and reason? I can summarize your fate in three short words: you are toast.

I have also debated liberals many times on the issue of values. You can learn a lot about an individual’s values by what they think is acceptable public behavior. For example, liberals support same-sex marriage and have no problem with two men making out in public. However, liberals have a major problem with little school children holding hands and saying a prayer at their desk (although their concern over prayer in public schools somehow does not apply to Muslim students). Where is the logic in this? Engaging in public displays of gay sex is acceptable but public prayer isn’t?

When debating liberals on the issue of values, it is interesting to ask them what it is they really value. What is the value they hold dear that says same-sex marriage is acceptable, but public prayer for children is not? Liberals respond to this by claiming they value free choice between consenting adults. Really? Why then can’t consenting adult Christians display their beliefs in the public square without having to fight the ACLU? What is it that liberals value that makes abortion on demand take precedence over the life of an unborn child? Once again liberals respond to this question by claiming they are for “choice.” Really? What about the other choices that could have been made prior to the woman getting pregnant, choices such as abstinence or birth control. What about choice for the unborn babies who cannot yet speak for themselves. What if unborn babies could somehow speak? I wonder how many would say: “Sure, go ahead and kill me mom. I know I am an inconvenience to you.”

What does it say about their true values when liberals publically espouse tolerance but are blatantly intolerant of views that do not comport with their own? It seems to me that the only values liberals really hold dear are self-centeredness and control. They self-servingly value whatever makes them feel good or serves their agenda at the moment, and they use government coercion to control what the rest of us are supposed to think, do, and say about those things. Liberals are tolerant alright—of their own views, but nothing else.

Liberals just love to label people who disagree with them as “racists.” With Barack Obama in the White House that means that 55 percent of Americans must be racists since that is the percentage of Americans who disagree with his policies and think he is doing an inadequate job. Think of Congress and tell me who acts more like racists. There is a Congressional Black Caucus made up of Black members of the House of Representatives. This is a group of elected officials whose members choose to segregate themselves on the basis of race. There is no Congressional White Caucus. Liberals have no problem with the existence of a Black Congressional Caucus but they would quickly label a White Congressional Caucus a bunch of racists. Yet, there is no contradiction in this to a liberal.

Sometimes it seems that you have to be a criminal or a thug to win favor with liberals. For example, recall that President Obama openly mourned the death of Trayvon Martin, claiming the young man looked like the son he never had. Let’s review some facts about Trayvon Martin. He was a drug user and a thief who was headed down the wrong path in life when he was killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer who he assaulted. But there is another young black man close to Martin’s age who President Obama never mentions. Jaron Holliday was homeschooled, a devout Christian, an accomplished classical pianist, and a corporal in the United State Army who died serving his country. Not only does this outstanding young American apparently not look like Obama’s son, he doesn’t even rate a mention from the president.

Consider the issue of talk radio. Liberals hate talk radio because the only successful talk radio programs are conservative. The liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh and company is NPR. Liberals want conservative talk radio programs such as Rush Limbaugh’s to be banned or regulated out of existence. At the same time, they think NPR should be subsidized by American taxpayers, most of whom do not listen to NPR and would not if it were the only radio station on the air. But asking a liberal about this blatant contradiction is like asking them about the quadratic equation. They don’t have a clue.

The hard truth is this: Liberals are intolerant, illogical, unreasonable, biased, and immune to facts. You cannot reason with liberals because they believe only what serves their selfish agenda at the moment, but you cannot just ignore them either. Why? Because they are using the federal government to force their point of view on the rest of us. It would be one thing if liberals still operated according to their mantra of the 1960s: You do your thing and I’ll do mine, but they don’t. They now want to do their thing and force you to do it too. What a world.