In the thread yesterday to a college classmate’s Facebook post on supposed GOP voter suppression in Florida*, I made the case for voter identification laws. When I provided evidence of voter fraud, including linking articles, he dismissed such notions as “claptrap,” with another classmate chiming in to tell me to ” Learn to actually think”. Fascinating how educated liberals oftentimes refuse to acknowledge the facts conservatives present or to address the arguments we make.
And when we don’t agree with their arguments, they accuse us being narrow-minded — or not thinking. Gee, wonder if he faults former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens for not thinking, given that that liberal jurist defended the constitutionality of voter ID laws in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.
Almost at the same time that I was reading my classmates’ attempt to dismiss my arguments with quips, I caught an explanation for the behavior of this very bright men who attended a very good college on Instapundit:
I’ve always believed that academia’s liberal bias uniquely advantages conservatives and libertarians because it guarantees that such students do not grow up in an intellectual echo-chamber. Instead, they are challenged every day to communicate clearly, order their thoughts with care and sharpen their arguments.
What is sad is that so many of our liberal peers think they are making the better argument when they’re not making arguments at all.
They’re just so used to their liberal opinion being validated.
*he linked this article. Would Yahoo! feature an article by an ex-Democrat (under indictment) alleging that his (former) party was engaging in vote fraud, with party leaders denying that he attended the meetings in question?