In the comments section back here, Toronto Tory William E. Demers gets all bent out of shape, wondering why we insist on making fun of him, challenging us thusly:
You guys need to grow up. Rather than calling me names, why don't you come discuss your opinions with me?
Now, given that this is the same William E. Demers who opined:
I happen to think Mr. Bush is a great orator ...
one is justifiably left to wonder -- what the hell exactly would we be discussing?
In a general sense, how is it that the wingnut Right expects us to engage them in intellectual discussion, when what they offer us as grist for the conversation are opinions so idiotic, so inane and so divorced from reality that the only proper response is slack-jawed disbelief that anyone could be so freakin' dense?
William is apparently impressed with the oratorical talents of George W. Bush. This is, of course, the same George Bush whose name has become synonymous with mangling the English language; the same George Bush whose verbal malapropisms have inspired entire books and web pages; the same George Bush whose fundamental political philosophy consists of spouting vacuous tautologies. Yet this is the man who William admires for his oratorical skill, which again leads us to ask: What is there to discuss?
How do you respond when the wingnuts offer up such absurdities as "George Bush is a great orator" or "Gay marriage will threaten the sanctity of traditional marriage" or "There's no evidence for evolution" or "If we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us home." What do you say? What is there to say?
If you're feeling ambitious, you can try desperately to find some common ground but, really, is there any point? When someone can, in all seriousness, praise the linguistic talents of someone as howlingly inept as George W. Bush, well, I'm fairly sure that that is going to be one fruitless conversation.