Dinesh D'Souza correctly identifies liberal's approach to change

The full video begins here but most of it is not worth watching.  The part that I think is spot on begins here.  If you click on the 2nd link you might need some context to understand D'Souza's reply.  In short a young white guy of privilege has just made the point that something should be done to help minorities because people who are ahead got ahead essentially on the backs of those who did not get ahead.  The white liberal's argument goes all the way back to soldiers returning from WW2 getting some benefits that black soldiers did not get.  Of course, it ignores all of the affirmative action of the past 30 years where many minorities got opportunities that they did not deserve based on their merits; distribution of these benefits was solely based on skin color.

OK so let's forget for a second that trying to make up for past wrongs done by others by penalizing me today is completely unfair.  Let's also forget that those minorities that have shown the ability to contribute in a way that society has considered important have been rewarded.  Has everyone already forgotten that our last US president was black?  Skin color did not seem to hold him back! 
So let's look at Obama in a bit more detail.  He was good looking, well spoken, well dressed and did not sound like a ghetto rat.  In other words, he understood that he was living in a white dominated system and he gave into that system what it valued.  When he played the game that was handed to him the way it needed to be played, he won.  Now, if I went around with my baggy pants so low that my ass crack was hanging out and if I spoke with the language of the street (as many poor foolish white people try to do) then I would have no success in this same game.  In other words, I have to play by the same rules as Obama did.  Obama clearly outplayed me and was rewarded more that I have been.  But neither of us got what we got from American society without playing by the same rules.

American society is about picking the best players for your team and then going out and winning.  Look at how many blacks are on pro basketball and pro football teams.  Is Michael Jordan an immoral bastard simply because white men can't jump?  I think not.  And I don't think basketball or football has discriminated against whites.  Whites in general simply do not have the genetic athleticism of blacks.  Who cares what the reasons for this are?  What is simply is.  As an engineer I mainly care about the facts.  The fact is that US basketball and football are black dominated and for good reason.  I don't begrudge those players making millions.  They are earning it by giving society what it is asking for.  They are playing by the rules at hand, not trying to play by the fantasy rules of some other fantasy society.

So the notion that some military benefits paid back to white soldiers returning from WW2 allowed them to get ahead and that is why whites are generally ahead of blacks and others in our socioeconomic ladder is just stupid.  Those benefits were a pittance and they were consumed and gone within a short time.  It's not some bank account that paid 20% per annum in perpetuity thus leaving the descendants of those soldiers financially independent.

So there is the first fallacy of the liberal argument: make some claim that is logically not valid and then build a huge big progressive conclusion from it.  But it is really D'Souza's dressing down of that white guy that exposes in detail the main issue with liberal thinking.  Liberals say they want things to get better and that action should be taken but always at someone else's cost.

• We should go to war.  Send us your children so we can do battle (mine will be exempt because of the rules we made up to protect them).
• We should give special reparations to those who have supposedly been abused.  By "we" I mean you, or someone else, but certainly not me.
• "We" should give condoms to school children and needles to junkies but it should be paid for by the national credit card because if you ask the liberal to pay for it out of his own pocket, their blabbing mouths slam shut.

The main tools that D'Souza used in shutting this liberal down:

• Clearly state that in order to implement these liberal socialist ideas, something has to be taken from someone who has earned it.  There is not some pool of value waiting to be tapped in order to pay these claims and contrary to liberal thinking, government does not have any money of its own to spend.  Each dime spent comes either from taxation or is added to the debt bill which is already so large that I guarantee you the US will eventually default on in some way (likely through massive inflation).
• Disallow the accuser to hide behind a fake shield of global morality where he purports to speak for a class action while doing nothing himself.  In other words, if you want to provide condoms to school children and needles to junkies, do it your fucking self before you ask me to do it.  Do not come to me to pay for these stupid "progressive programs" and others like them unless you personally are leading the way.  And don't add them to a credit card bill which I will be held partially responsible for in the future.  If you want this crap, you pay for it.  If you do then maybe I will consider it after I see if your theories have resulted in the expected benefits.  But until then, do not force me under color of morality to pay for your dumb ass social(ist) experiments (brainwashing).
• Turn the label game back on the accuser.  In the video D'Souza properly calls the young brainwashed liberal a hypocrite.
• Make a point of calling out the individual for his claims.  It's one thing to say liberalism is stupid.  The dyed in the wool liberal simply stands behind the broad shield of liberalism and says "I took one for the team".  It does nothing to dissuade the next brainwashed fool from spewing the same brainwashed nonsense.  This is exactly along the lines of what I have written many times about the police.  You cannot say "the police are violent criminals" and expect much good to come of it.  They have a protective shield in the form of city lawyers, politicians who view the cops as their own little assault team and of course the police beneviolent (sic) association.  The only way to get the stupid crap to stop is to attack and destroy the individual who is doing the crap.  Once others in the herd see that they cannot hide behind the system they will stop trying to hide behind the system.  That cop who pulls the woman over and gropes her because he "suspects" drug trafficking needs to personally be charged with sexual assault and to be put in jail.  We do not need the woman getting a payout from the city because the city has no money of its own.  The city has only my money and that of other taxpayers and I/they did no wrong.  So punish the individual and don't let them hide behind an organization.  D'Souza does a great job of this in the video by saying, "and I'm not trying to indict everyone of hypocrisy, only you, because you are the one who said I'm the beneficiary of illicit privilege... you're willing to have social justice when other people pay, but you're not willing to pay.".  He then goes on to generalize by saying, "that's the problem with the progressive-ism that marches behind social justice while protecting its own privileges".  Next time you see some gun grabbing politician spew their nonsense, ask the difficult question as to how big their armed security detail is.  The truth will shock most people.  Do as I say but not as I do is liberalism 101.