... than light a candle? These are my observations on right-wing pundit-speak. Mostly I'm responding to a gem on WorldNetDaily called 10 reasons I've grown to despise the Left... and why you should, too. Admittedly, the whole piece is feckless and lacking in logic yet it provides a convenient straw, uh, person for my faltering concentration. My mood requires an easy target.

Belittle and dismiss everyone who disagrees with you.
Speak in bold, unequivical statements of disingenuous disparagement.
Do not use argument: declaim, denounce, and denigrate.
Bring in religion: their lack of it and your suffusion with it.
Impugn their morals and ethics.
Say they are mindless automatons of doctrine (i.e., not human).
Insult, insult, insult.

Hmm. Less satisfying than I thought. I guess I'm wondering if this sort of yammering actually works to influence people or whether it is just a form of speech designed to bond the faithful together?

I note that the majority of the writers I read on the Left generally make reasoned arguments. Most of the Right writers I read seem to rely heavily on slogans and simplistic smears. "The Left is dumb. Why? Because they're dumb!" This sort of bald statement abounds in right-wing polemics. When rhetorical reasoning occurs, it often seems to be circular reasoning.