Arguing like a liberal, Part II

I got the following comment last night on the Arguing like a liberal post:

Is there any liberal politician you do not consider a "sociopath", mr. Craig?

You seem to be obsessed with handing out these diagnoses, despite your obvious lack of qualifications. Yet no prominent GOP politician ever gets characterized as such. Why is that?

I replied:

Mr. Anonymous Liberal --
You haven't been reading the blog for very long. I've characterized James Traficant, Joe Arpaio, and Newt Gingrich as sociopaths. Type those names into the subject line and you'll find the posts.

And of course there are plenty of liberal politicians who aren't sociopaths. When did I ever say there were not?

Why is is that there are so many liberals like you, however, who need to put words into other peoples' mouths in order to "win" an argument?

This fellow touches on several liberal memes in his comment. First, he makes a false accusation, saying that I've never characterized a conservative politician as such. As I pointed out, I've written about Newt Gingrich, Joe Arpaio, and James Traficant (who although nominally a Democrat, often voted Republican and is probably most famous for having defended a supposed Nazi).

Secondly, he suggests that I consider all liberal politicians to be sociopaths, which is equally ridiculous: I've never suggested any such thing. I've named a total of five prominent liberals as sociopaths: Bill Clinton, Wendy Davis, Richard Blumenthal, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson. (And characterizing Sharpton and Jackson as politicians is actually a bit of a stretch, as neither has ever held elective office.)

I've also written paeans to a pair of liberal politicians, George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. But the liberal assumes that I think like a typical liberal, whose judgment of personality is determined solely by political outlook.

Third, he says that I am "obsessed" with handing out such diagnoses; this is also a common liberal meme, trying to suggest that anybody who disagrees with them must be mentally unbalanced. (I suspect there is some projection there.) 

And fourth, he says I have an "obvious lack of qualifications." Liberals tend to subscribe heavily to credentialism. I could point out that I have a degree in psychology from Harvard (though in fact I graduated not knowing a thing about sociopathy). My interest in sociopathy stems from my personal experiences with sociopaths, starting with this one; it has turned into a lifelong interest. I've read most of the books on the subject, and am far more familiar with them -- on both a personal and academic level -- than most professional psychologists, many of whom are remarkably unversed on the subject.

Conversely, I could point out that I do have an MBA - unlike Carlos Slim. But I would never claim that I know even a fraction of what he does about business. (However, in liberal credential-land, I do.)

I suspect that the commenter knows -- or at least senses -- that I am right about Sharpton, Clinton, et al, so he doesn't want to argue about them. But he doesn't like the fact that I point out their sociopathy, so he attacks me. 

Anyway, this is the way liberals argue -- and how ironic that this fellow would do so in on a post entitled, "Arguing like a liberal."

(I've been told by several people that I should not respond to trolls, but it's just too much fun to point out their dishonesty and hypocrisy.)