Changes

# If a crime is committed against a member of a predominantly [[Democrat]] group, then it's a "[[hate crime]]"; if committed against a member of a mostly [[Republican]] group, then it is not.

# If a crime is committed against a member of a predominantly [[Democrat]] group, then it's a "[[hate crime]]"; if committed against a member of a mostly [[Republican]] group, then it is not.

# The [[young mass murderer]] who killed nine in Munich in July 2016 was obsessed with violent [[video games]] and plotted his rampage for a year, but [[liberal]]s insist "there were no warning signs."

# The [[young mass murderer]] who killed nine in Munich in July 2016 was obsessed with violent [[video games]] and plotted his rampage for a year, but [[liberal]]s insist "there were no warning signs."

# No matter what happens in the weather, "[[global warming]]" must have caused it (though liberals now prefer the term "climate change" as it can be better used no matter what happens).

# No matter what happens in the weather, "[[global warming]]" must have caused it (though liberals now prefer the term "climate change" as it is a catch-all phrase that can be used to mean whatever they want it to mean as it relates to the weather and the environment, no matter what happens).

# Insist on "tolerance" for anything that is anti-[[Christian]], while promoting [[censorship]] for anything which is [[Christian]].

# Insist on "tolerance" for anything that is anti-[[Christian]], while promoting [[censorship]] for anything which is [[Christian]].

# [[Pope Francis]] is taller than "[[Fidel Castro]]," [[Obama]] is much taller than Pope Francis, but the real Fidel was taller than Obama.  Obama spent several days in Cuba in 2016 yet never met or even mentioned Fidel during the much-publicized visit.  Yet liberals insisted Fidel was still alive and well until President-elect [[Trump]] had to be briefed about the truth.

# [[Pope Francis]] is taller than "[[Fidel Castro]]," [[Obama]] is much taller than Pope Francis, but the real Fidel was taller than Obama.  Obama spent several days in Cuba in 2016 yet never met or even mentioned Fidel during the much-publicized visit.  Yet liberals insisted Fidel was still "alive and well" until President-elect [[Trump]] had to be briefed about the truth.

# Claim something is true merely because a (nearly bankrupt) newspaper said so (see [[appeal to authority]])

# Claim something is true merely because a (nearly bankrupt) newspaper said so (see [[appeal to authority]])

# [[Obama]], [[Obama's Religion|whose statements and activities are]] [[Islam]]ic and does not attend church, is somehow a "Christian" while [[Thomas Jefferson]], a regular churchgoer, was "not a Christian".

# [[Obama]], [[Obama's Religion|whose statements and activities are]] [[Islam]]ic and does not attend church, is somehow a "Christian" while [[Thomas Jefferson]], a regular churchgoer, was "not a Christian".

# Claim that liberals' viewpoints are being "censored", while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents.

# Claim that liberals' viewpoints are being "censored", while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents.

# Claim that switching from heterosexual to [[homosexual]] is "customary", but switching back is somehow "impossible".

# Claim that switching from heterosexual to [[homosexual]] is "customary", but switching back is somehow "impossible".

# Insist that someone needs to experience something (e.g., drugs, pornography, gambling, etc.) before being able to criticize it<ref>[http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1808 Bryn Mawr report on marijuana]. Many commentators said the reporter had no justification for his views since he had never tried marijuana. Examples of such liberal logic included: "There are pros and cons to everything under the sun. That dosen't (sic) mean that you shouldn't try it all...Besides marijuana is so much more beneficial then everyone realizes." which was smartly replied to by another commenter with: "Following your logic, obviously there are PROS to:

# Insist that someone needs to experience something (e.g., drugs, pornography, gambling, etc.) before being able to criticize it,<ref>[http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1808 Bryn Mawr report on marijuana]. Many commentators said the reporter had no justification for his views since he had never tried marijuana. Examples of such liberal logic included: "There are pros and cons to everything under the sun. That dosen't (sic) mean that you shouldn't try it all...Besides marijuana is so much more beneficial then everyone realizes." which was smartly replied to by another commenter with: "Following your logic, obviously there are PROS to:

*jumping off the Empire State Building

*jumping off the Empire State Building

*anorexia

*anorexia

*child molestation

*child molestation

*Shall I keep going?...

*Shall I keep going?...

Sorry, but not only is your drug-induced logic utterly flawed, but you don't exactly exude intelligence. Forgive me if I don't join your crusade."</ref>

Sorry, but not only is your drug-induced logic utterly flawed, but you don't exactly exude intelligence. Forgive me if I don't join your crusade."</ref> while conversely, liberals also insist that once someone experiences something, they then forfeit the right to criticize it - but liberals hypocritically do not apply that rule to themselves.

# Pretend to base their opinion on an unverifiable or unusual personal experience, when real [[logic]] would be a better guide.

# Pretend to base their opinion on an unverifiable or unusual personal experience, when real [[logic]] would be a better guide.

# Criticize [[Christians]] for literal interpretations of [[Genesis]], but then insist on even more literal interpretations when it suits the [[liberal]] ideology.<ref>For example, [[liberals]] here insist that [[homeschooling]] can only mean being taught while in someone's own home.</ref>

# Criticize [[Christians]] for literal interpretations of [[Genesis]], but then insist on even more literal interpretations when it suits the [[liberal]] ideology.<ref>For example, [[liberals]] here insist that [[homeschooling]] can only mean being taught while in someone's own home.</ref>