Empire of the Iguanadons

So as I was posting the last comment I have on the California fires topic, I noticed some wonderful example of American breeding posted a comment basically wishing my house had burned down so he wouldn't have to read my shit anymore. It's yet another variant on the drumbeat from the left to silence viewpoints they're opposed to. But why is this?

What is it about personal responsibility, US sovereignty, immigration control, privatized health care, capitalism, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, and smaller government the left finds so distasteful? What is it about personal freedoms they despise? Why is it they blame the right for all the ills they've caused over the years? And how is it they've managed to make the media their lapdogs in all this?

I can only hazard a guess since it's impossible for me to put myself into their frame of mind. I think it's simply because the things we conservatives believe in take away control from the all mighty federal government. Being capable of thinking independently, taking responsibility for your own actions, being subject to moral judgment, these are things they all go out of their way to stop.

Just look at a few recent examples from this year alone. They want to give birth control to 11 year old middle school students in Maine. At another school in Colorado, they gave a speech in which the school REQUIRED the students to attend and then told them that doing drugs and having sex without telling your parents is perfectly ok. Liberal professors give bad grades to students who dare to hold an opposing viewpoint in class. Countless cases of this can be found.

Anyone with an even remotely religious viewpoint is demonized. Rosie O'Donnel even made it perfectly clear she thinks Christians are as bad as Islamic terrorists. If you believe in God, you're some kind of lunatic. If you don't believe in evolution, you're a crazy person. If you attend church regularly, somehow you're plotting against them. If your moral compass is guided by religion, you're a wackjob. So then why does the left insist on not being judged? surely it's got to be hypocritical of them to make the kind of ludicrous judgments they make about religious people? Unless you're Islamic - then for some reason they go out of their way never to offend you.

They deliberately perpetuate the myth that racism is an exclusively right-wing problem. Anytime an incident happens the first thing the media does is blame republicans for keeping racism alive. It's not our side who continues to portray blacks as victims of the evil white man. It's not our side calling the other racists for wanting to have a sound border enforcement policy. It's not our side convincing minorities that they're being oppressed by the establishment. Yet if you take the word of the left and their media lapdogs that's exactly what you're being told.

At every turn, left wingers cry foul because Fox News is on the air. They condemn it for holding a center-right viewpoint. People mock it as "Faux News". Everywhere you look left wing media is trying to paint Fox as some kind of Gestapo operation run by the Bush administration. All the while they proclaim themselves as bastions of free speech and free press. So then why are they trying to get Fox kicked off the air?

So just what is the left wing afraid of?
.........................
McCain-Palin 2008
http://www.johnmccain.com/

No American breeding involved, Samson, Lazerous is Canadian.

Minor detail. There's a left wing in Canada too, and given that, my argument actually holds more weight since their left wing is far more entrenched than ours. It was only just recently that Fox News broke the left's total monopoly on their media. Not coincidentally, people up there are starting to realize what a mess they've made of things.

You speak as if it has never happened that a right-winger has wished the same of a left-winger. You have heard of Ann Coulter, no?

It is completely unreasonable to judge an entire group of people based on one or even several kooks. I'm not going to judge you based on Ann Coulter's most recent looniness. I would be utterly ashamed of myself if I did.

This ran was about way more than just the specific instance of what Lazerus had to say. I just used it as a springboard to get something off my chest. Exactly what is it they're afraid of? It must be something big because they expend a great deal of effort to try and silence us - Ann Coulter being a perfect example.

Perhaps you'd care to help inform those who may be reading here what you think her "most recent looniness" is?

I never said Ann Coulter should be silenced. I suggested that she has also expressed the wish that her opponents died. She should be ignored, because her main goal is to provoke furor, not intelligent debate, but not silenced. Incidentally, are you seriously suggesting that what she says is perfectly reasonable? (Are we talking about the same person here?) But Ann Coulter isn't the point here; I was reacting to your implied claim that it is only left-wingers who try to "silence" right-wingers.

By "most recent looniness", I wasn't referring to an event in particular. It was a figure of speech to suggest that I wouldn't judge somebody due to the antics of somebody else from the same general political affiliation. That's classic fallacy by association and should be avoided by any reasonable person.

I didn't say you said she should be silenced. I was, and have been, speaking in much more general terms here. There are an awful lot of liberals out there, mostly in the media, who think people like Ann Coulter should be silenced for being "too radical" or "beyond the pale" but have no problem whatsoever backing the latest lunatic fringe stuff coming from moveon.org.

And for the record, yes, a lot of what she has to say is perfectly reasonable. I drop by her site fairly often to see what she's got going on and often find her dark sarcasm quite refreshing. You don't seriously think she wants to see people dead? Her main goal is indeed to provoke furor, but that's precisely why she does it. To goad a reaction. Apparently it works rather well for her because the libs jump all over it and she gets her point across.

My claim is based on what I observe. Many left wing sources, media, blogs, college students, and people in general seem to have this aversion to wanting to let someone with a different point of view even get a chance to speak. Ann Coulter once again provided excellent example of this since she was literally attacked by an angry crowd of college students before she was able to get 3 words out. These same students have no qualms about letting a raving lunatic like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speak at their campus.

To my knowledge, while many right wing radio and blog sites despise what the left has to say and quite readily call them lunatics, they will still stand and defend their right to be lunatics and say what's on their mind. I just wish they'd reciprocate and stop calling for us to be silenced. They obviously have something to be afraid of.

I'm not really interested in debating the value of what Ann Coulter says. Does she seriously want to see people dead? Who knows. Who cares? She said it, and apparently just saying things is enough to warrant, oh, I don't know, being labeled 'traitor' or 'evil', even if you don't actually believe what you said. Well, in any case, we've agreed that her main goal is to piss people off, and as such, I see little use in taking her too seriously. What's unfortunate is that many others don't realize that getting angry is exactly what will keep her going; she should be treated like a 2nd grade bully: don't react to the teasing and the teaser will get bored. :shrug:

I have not observed calls for right-wingers to be silenced. Oh, sure, I've seen several calls to have them thrown out of office and such, but that doesn't mean they can't express their views. I find it very unfortunate that you are taking this grossly generalizing stance of right-wingers being oh-so-noble and left-wingers being oh-so-despicable. Certainly doesn't contribute to useful debate, in any case. :-) (Hmm... weren't you the one complaining about the situation being incredibly polarized not so long ago?)

There's a serious difference between Ann Coulter saying someone should die ( a specific example would be helpful, I can't find such a reference on her site ) and not meaning it vs Harry Reid and other MEMBERS OF CONGRESS saying and doing things which they not only mean, but they validate through their actions on a daily basis. Ann does it to provoke thought through pissing people off. Harry and the others do it as a matter of policy. Surely you can see the difference?

You haven't observed calls for right wingers to be silenced? Were you asleep during the whole mess when Harry Reid and 40 other Democrats drafted a letter to Clear Channel USA trying to get Rush Limbaugh off the air? This wasn't just the usual moveon.org daily call for Rush to be killed or something. This was the Senate majority leader abusing his power in direct violation of the 1st amendment. Can you give me any examples of instances where a republican Senate majority leader or his counterpart in the House did something like that?

This is the kind of crap that justifies my opinion of the left, plain and simple. It's why the left can rail on all they want about Rush, Fox News, Ann Coulter and all the others and I'm not going to listen to a damn thing they have to say about it. It's not stubborn to stick to your principles when you know you're in the right.

come on samson! ur a fucking facist dicktator and u know it!

and I'm not going to listen to a damn thing they have to say about it.

That pretty much summarizes an awful lot of things, unfortunately. It's the adult version of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "lalala". It is, of course, your prerogative, it's just funny that you expect other people to not act the same way with you. People will extend to you the same treatment you extend to them; you could always choose to be the noble one and try to break the vicious cycle.

Lazerus is still as kooky as ever, though... :-)

You seemed to gloss over the very next statement - that it's not stubbornness when your position is in the right and you're sticking to your principles.

Principles are, almost by definition, neither right nor wrong; they are principles that are posited as bases of reasoning. I am highly skeptical of anybody telling me that their principle is the "right" one. As for knowing you are in the right about a position in general, well, I am also highly skeptical of somebody who believes themselves so absolutely to be in the right while refusing to listen to those who disagree. It's easy to be right if you never talk to those who don't agree. It's easy to think you have all the answers if you stay in a cocoon where your only exposure is to your own ideas.

So no, I did not gloss over the next statement: it is in fact basically the same statement as the one I quoted. Both of them are saying "I'm right, they're wrong, I'm not going to listen to anything they say, and besides everything they say is completely wrong to begin with". So like I said, it's interesting that you hold such a position, and then you write blog posts about how bad it is that the "other side" does precisely the same thing to "your side".

Contrary to your belief system there IS a right and a wrong. When you know your position is right, it doesn't make any sense to stop and listen to someone you know is wrong because it would be morally corrupt to change your mind knowing that person or group is wrong.

People who do waffle back and forth on their positions are scary and unstable. But people who stubbornly stick to a wrong position, when they can be clearly shown it's wrong, are insane, and extremely dangerous. Especially when they're elected to office and think they've been given a mandate to run the country into the ground.

I never said there was no such thing as right and wrong. I said that I was skeptical about people who claim to be so absolutely certain they *know* what is right and wrong. One word suffices: 'how?' If you're feeling religious: did God come down and hand you a divine note of truth, bring to holy light the grandeur of veracity? Or if you are feeling secular: did the very spirit of Reason reveal itself to you in its splendor and shine light upon the question? Either way, forgive me if I raise my eyebrows.

Samson said:
But people who stubbornly stick to a wrong position, when they can be clearly shown it's wrong, are insane, and extremely dangerous.

It's nice to not really have to make my point when you make it for me. This is precisely why adults who stick their fingers in their ears and sing "lalala" are also very scary. (Note: "also")

If you had a point to make then perhaps so, but you don't other than to mock my sense of right and wrong. Explaining such a thing to someone who clearly doesn't acknowledge such a sense exists is impossible and we could be here for decades while I attempt to map it out for you. It's something you're either born with or not. It's got nothing to do with being religious, secular, or whatever else. Right and wrong is hardwired into the framework of the species. It's simply apparent that not all of us have this hardware activated at birth.

Oh, I certainly have a point to make, and have made it, with your help. I'm not mocking your sense of right and wrong, at least as it is limited to local judgments that you admit might be mistaken. I am mocking your ludicrous claim that you have all the answers about right and wrong. And yet again, I never said there is no such thing as right and wrong. I realize this might be subtle, especially in your very simple framework of Manichean blacks and whites, but just because I do not claim to know precisely what is right and wrong does not mean I claim that there is no such thing. Nor does it mean I claim that people do not have an intuition as to what they feel is right or wrong. But it does mean that I believe that somebody so arrogant and full of themselves as to turn that intuition into a claim of knowledge is committing a gross mistake.

Samson said:
Right and wrong is hardwired into the framework of the species. It's simply apparent that not all of us have this hardware activated at birth.

Clearly, oh great one, thou art superior to all of us, mere mortals, and thy knowledge of the topic matter has been imparted upon thee by higher powers, and we can never hope to attain thy grandeur. (snicker)

How ridiculous, Samson. It is mind-boggling that you are purporting to somehow have the final say on what's right and wrong, and everybody who disagrees with you is not only incorrect, but now you are claiming in addition that they are somehow biologically impaired. Forgive me if I don't take you at all seriously on this point. (Your point is empirically false anyhow, but I guess since you know you are right and you won't listen to anything anyway, there's no point in me even attempting to explain this to you.)

In conclusion, I present the following argument. Let's play the "spot the fallacy" game:

None of what you say matters anyhow, since I'm right and you're wrong anyhow, and since I know you are wrong and I am right, this discussion is pointless.

Be that as it may, I'm at peace with my conscience. Your increasingly hostile responses to my continued assertion leaves me to wonder what exactly you yourself are afraid of finding out. But then I'm an arrogant bastard for daring to assert there is a right, and a wrong, and we've been given the means to determine this.

I find it interesting that your very first response to the actual point I was making was to turn this into a "the right wing does it too" all the while arguing that it's not right to make those kinds of judgments. I declare mission accomplished.

Samson said:
"the right wing does it too" all the while arguing that it's not right to make those kinds of judgments.

And this, my good Samson, is precisely where we differ. I am neither afraid nor ashamed to paint blame where I see it. So yes, "the right wing does it too" -- and it is not right to make these judgments. No matter who makes them. That includes left wingers. You are unwilling to paint anything resembling "your side" in a bad light, but I freely point to blame no matter where I see it.

I'm not "afraid" of finding anything out (not sure where you got that idea??), I'm just not going to sit here happily while you accuse me of being somehow biologically defective because I don't have the exact same moral views as you do. The mere thought amuses me to no end... I certainly owe you big for providing me with a good day's worth of laughs. :-)

Well, as far as I'm concerned, this has run its course. (You seem to have failed the "let's spot the fallacy" test, incidentally. But that's because I'm right, and you're wrong, and I know I'm right, and I know you're wrong, so you wouldn't have been able to pass it anyhow. :snicker:)

Oh, I only failed in your view. For me, it's not a fallacy to know my position is right. I just find it disturbing and scary to know there are people out there who don't. And I don't mean "know because I said so on a blog". I mean "know as in my instincts, intuition, and conscience tell me so". Your attempt to try and turn this into a fallacy of debate is laughable, because it changes nothing. There ARE times when the right wing "preachiness" is true, as in absolutely true. There is no moral equivalency with raw truth. It either is or it isn't, there is no grey.

As for my original post in this topic, it's a documented fact that the left engages in all of what I've mentioned. It's also a documented fact that they are on a crusade to silence the right wing, their most laser-like focus being on Fox News. Personally I hope they keep it up because the longer they do the more people will begin to realize who exactly it is that's out to silence opposing viewpoints. But at the same time, market forces will dictate who lives and who dies.

Case in point - Air America. Decidedly liberal talk radio. Made their mark by spewing forth hatred and vileness. Conservatives chose to do what is our right: We ignored them. Guess what? The entire network went bankrupt and had to be bailed out of total collapse by George Soros. Despite this they have dismal ratings and almost no listeners according to any reputable source for statistics on the subject. Why is this? Did George W send Cheney out with his goons to have them shut down? No. Free market forces isolated them to the small minority of people who want to hear what the network has to offer. They still exist but in a severely crippled fashion. There simply isn't a market for liberal talk radio.

On the opposite side of things, you have Rush Limbaugh. The #1 talk radio host in the nation, with affiliates on over 600 stations - including a few in Canada and Mexico of all places. The #2 spot in the nation is occupied by the Sean Hannity show, on well over 500 stations nationwide, and a couple in Canada. How did this come to pass? Because it's what the people wanted. The ratings bear this out, and it's where the advertisers choose to spend their money.

Who does Congress and the left try to get knocked off the air by sending threatening letters and organizing attempts to boycott advertisers? That's right. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Why is this? They have something to fear by allowing their messages to spread.

Why did you not address the points in my original post? I don't know, but you took the bait and apparently can't handle it, so you resort to trying to play games. I played along. You then resorted to the usual - attack the messenger and accuse him of accusing you. Ok, fine. I'll play... oh wait. Played and won. So yeah, you're right, it's pointless to keep going around in circles like this. If I provided you a day's amusement, it was something at least. Hopefully I've shocked your sensibilities enough to take a closer look at where your side stands on things. If I have to use Ann Coulter tactics to do it, the so be it.

Yeah, well, MY instincts, intuition and conscience tell me you're wrong and I'm right and I don't have to listen to a damn thing you say anyway. Tee hee hee. I hope you see how ridiculous and unsustainable this is as a line of reasoning.

Oh, but then again, I'm biologically impaired, so, err, hrm...

One final serious note:

Samson said:
There ARE times when the right wing "preachiness" is true, as in absolutely true.

Yes, you are right. I'm intellectually honest enough to whole-heartedly agree with that. There are also times when the left wing "preachiness" is true, as in absolutely true. Let's see if you, also, have enough good faith to admit that.

There are also times when the left wing "preachiness" is true, as in absolutely true.

I'll be sure not to hold my breath waiting for this to happen in my lifetime, though in theory it could happen.

Well, as sad as it makes me, it would appear that I was correct to assume you would answer along those lines. Too bad, so sad.

The truth hurts.

You two make me giggle.

To touch on one thing, however, because it's me and I have to, your instinct and intuition can, in fact, be 100% wrong. If you honestly believe that this is not the case, you are just plain silly.

Conscience is another matter entirely and no one's conscience can be said to be right or wrong except where you're comparing it to a social norm. I find that comparing one abstract creation to another, no matter how many people share one or the other, to be perfectly stupid.

I also think that anyone who believes everything a group of people has to say is frighteningly lemmingy. The fact that someone like Limbaugh has so much influence over so many people is downright ridiculous and not a glimmering facet of our society. If the guy said illegals were cool and should be allowed to set up shops in the US, I have to wonder just how many sheeple would suddenly switch their stance on it. (Note that this is not directed at Samson, it's just a frequent subject of discourse here and I'm politically ignorant.)

I'm glad I'm not the only sane person here.

Yeah, sure, it can be 100% wrong, but no matter how much I say otherwise nobody is ever going to accept that mine hasn't been yet.

Simply put, my instincts tell me socialism and leftist policy is bad for the nation and history has so far proven me quite correct.

As far as illegals, if Rush Limbaugh suddenly decides they're the best thing in the world and we should embrace them and welcome the invasion, I'm fairly confident he'd lose a large portion of his audience. Namely, the ones like me who's instincts and conscience are functioning properly.

Samson said:
Yeah, sure, it can be 100% wrong, but no matter how much I say otherwise nobody is ever going to accept that mine hasn't been yet.

You really expect that we should accept that you are 100% right 100% of the time simply because you say so? Forgive me as I stare in disbelief.

Regarding the issues being discussed in this thread, and in general on my site, I dare say the answer is yes. Only one side can be right, and I happen to be on it. Much as I know you hate to choose sides and all, but there it is.

I don't mind taking sides when it comes to truth vs. false. I object to grossly generalizing labels that assume that every member of a group is a lemming of that group, e.g. as you behave with "right" vs. "left".

What a wonderful world you must live in, thinking you speak the very truth of God and Reason and All Things Holy! Tee hee.

I never said it was God, or "All Things Holy". I simply said it was right. And actually it's a pretty shitty world I live in knowing that most of the people in this state would prefer to subjugate anyone with similar viewpoints to my own than actually stop and listen to them for once in their pitiful lives. If they would actually stop and listen to what conservatives believe, they'd see we're right and tell the leftists where to shove it. Sadly most people in California are quite oblivious to the truth, or actively prevent themselves from hearing it. Or attack us and label us as kooks who think God and "All Things Holy" are all we care about, as if God and being Holy is supposed to be some kind of terrible thing.

I defend my positions as best I can. I'm sorry if it doesn't fit your San Fransisco state of mind of what's right and proper. If being a sarcastic asshole does the job, then so be it.

I'm glad I'm not the only sane person here.

For someone who thinks personal attacks are such a horrible thing, you seem more than willing to use them. What was that you were once saying about hypocrisy?

Samson said:
Or attack us and label us as kooks who think God and "All Things Holy" are all we care about, as if God and being Holy is supposed to be some kind of terrible thing.

I think you missed the irony. You aren't referring to God as a religious figure; you have instead deified yourself by substituting your own instinct as 'God' because your instinct is (apparently) omniscient and infallible.

Samson said:
I defend my positions as best I can.

If your idea of defending your position is to tell me that your instinct and conscience told you that you were right, and that I am biologically impaired if I cannot see that, then you have a very odd idea indeed of how to defend a position!

Samson said:
I'm sorry if it doesn't fit your San Fransisco state of mind of what's right and proper.

See, there you go again. You assume that everybody is a lemming incapable of separating their own thoughts from the people around them. I wonder if you're projecting a bit...

Samson said:
For someone who thinks personal attacks are such a horrible thing, you seem more than willing to use them. What was that you were once saying about hypocrisy?

Ah, yes, but I am right, and you are wrong, and my instinct says I am right, so it's not stubborn to say I'm right, nor is it false to say you are crazy for not sharing my position. So it's a statement of truth, not opinion, and therefore cannot be wrong, and I don't have to listen to a damn thing to the contrary anyhow.

But sure, and seriously, if you were offended, I apologize for that. It's just that I react rather poorly to being told I am somehow biologically inferior because I don't share your moral views. We all know what happened the last time(s) somebody decided to implement the consequences of such a view.

And for what it's worth, I'm not saying your positions themselves are insane. I'm saying that it's insane that you consider your instinct to somehow be sufficient evidence for me to accept your positions. There's no point talking about positions with you as long as this fundamental disconnect exists. That's why I don't bother discussing actual positions with you anymore: I have changed tacks to this kind of discussion, but since this also appears to be utterly useless (I am after all biologically impaired...) I'm thinking it might be better to give up on talking with you entirely. I have nothing more to be gained from it, and you have stated explicitly that you're not interested in even conceiving of changing your mind anyhow. (Why would you change it? You're infallible to begin with!!)

Why would I change it if I know I'm the one in the right? Explaining this to someone who refuses to see that is just as pointless as you seem to think arguing the topic is - since you've now turned this into another 30+ topic that decayed immediately into your rant about my style instead of arguing the substance. It's logical to assume then that you've already conceded I'm right and just feel like attacking me for stating it to begin with.

If you're watching a presidential debate and, oh, I don't know, say... the front-runner in the polls flip-flops on their answers regularly, often within the same response to a single question, and when called on it claims they've "changed their mind" in light of "new information" ( remember, same debate, same question ) are you seriously going to tell me that's fine? Wouldn't you prefer a candidate who says what they really feel, sticks by it, and defends it against all odds - especially if you KNEW the position they took was actually the right and correct one for the country?

Once again, sticking to your principles, when you are sure you're right, is not omniscience, it's not arrogant, and it's not deification. To not deviate when you know you're right based on the facts and evidence to back them is simply sound judgment.

You should really play the stock market: since your intuition is so perfect, you'd really make a killing. :-)

What makes you think I don't? :)

Also, exactly what debate tactic is it called when one participant actively refuses to address the issues and instead attacks the other participant? It's a general rule that when you resort to that your position is already lost and your opponent more or less wins by default regardless of how ridiculous you think he is as a debater.

I've already told you that I'm not interested in debating positions with you as long as this basic disconnect exists. What point is there in discussing premises and conclusions if we do not even agree on the rules of inference? I'm also not terribly interested in discussing positions as long as you hold the position that you're right no matter what anyhow and I'm biologically impaired if I don't agree.

What tactic is that? I dunno... the tactic of not wanting to bang my head against a brick wall for no purpose? Seriously, why should I engage in a conversation if I am told up front that whatever I say is wrong to begin with no matter what it is, unless I agree with you?

Funny. Every debate I've ever watched, from cheesy campus stuff, to full blown presidential debates, has always been about one side "banging their head against a brick wall" trying to get the other side to see their point of view. The whole concept is really quite ludicrous, because only one of them can actually be right. So there they stand, trying to convince you and me and everyone else that they're it. If both sides passionately believe their position is right, true, and correct, then by your logic there was never any point in them debating it. So essentially the entire process is pointless on its face.

Which brings us back here. If it's so pointless, why do any of us do this? Why do I post stuff here? Why do you respond? Why does Whir respond? Why does Daily Kos bother running a political blog? Why does CBS run an evening news commentary show disguised as a newscast? Why is Fox News on the air at all? Why do we let our elected officials stand there and bloviate endlessly if there's no purpose?

If an issue has two sides, both sides can't be right. One of them has to be wrong. Logic then dictates someone supporting the position that's right has to know it's right, and the other person supporting the wrong position is either a moron, or being deliberately deceptive when he too claims his position is right. And so we're clear - I'm not saying this applies to you individually. Whether you believe it or not I try to stay general as much as I can. I also refuse to shy away from being controversial, arrogant, egotistical, and sarcastic if I think it'll work for the particular issue. Life has very few issues where there isn't a clear case of right vs wrong.

There's a difference between debating the truth of premises and conclusions, and not even following the same logic to begin with. You are basing your entire position on the infallibility of your instinct with regards to right and wrong. How can anybody possibly argue with that? It's simply not a position you can argue with.

If somebody passionately believes their position is true, I expect them to tell me why without resorting to telling me how incredibly powerful and wonderful their instinct, conscience and whatever else are. That's basically asking me to believe them just because they said so. That's just not going to happen. I'm happy to be convinced by actual arguments. I won't buy an argument based on faith alone, be that faith in a religious god or in the god of instinct or what have you.

As to why people do it, well, because in a democracy what you believe affects me because your vote affects the country I live in. So people have an obvious incentive in trying to convince other people they are right. When you are talking to people who argue in good faith, progress can be made. When you're talking to somebody who's not being intellectually honest, well, everybody is wasting their time. But nonetheless, we all have a stake in what everyone else believes. So that's why those who fight for these things care.

Samson said:
If an issue has two sides, both sides can't be right. One of them has to be wrong.
(...)
Life has very few issues where there isn't a clear case of right vs wrong.

You can't just contradict yourself in the same paragraph like that. Either everything is black and white or it isn't. (How's that for a black and white sentence?) You said at the end that it isn't. I happen to agree that it isn't. Maybe you were just being hyperbolic at the beginning of the paragraph.

Incidentally, the vast majority of interesting issues have a whole lot more than two sides... otherwise, there wouldn't be the diversity of positions out there that there is. People are coming at the same issues from all kinds of different perspectives.

Samson said:
Logic then dictates someone supporting the position that's right has to know it's right, and the other person supporting the wrong position is either a moron, or being deliberately deceptive when he too claims his position is right.

That is simply not true. You can be in the right, and not know it. And clearly, you can be in the wrong and not know it either. If things were as simple as you make them out to be, the world would have a lot fewer problems. You make it all sound so easy. There are many people who are a whole lot smarter than you or me. If it were this easy, if it were immediately clear when you were right, why does there remain so much disagreement? Do you truly believe it's because all those who disagree are just being deliberate asses about it?

You are basing your entire position on the infallibility of your instinct with regards to right and wrong. How can anybody possibly argue with that? It's simply not a position you can argue with.

And yet leftist groups everywhere argue from this very position on a daily basis:

Bush is a Nazi. Bush is stripping us of our freedoms. Bush is a terrorist. Bush is evil. Bush is Satan. Bush gave tax cuts to the rich. Cheney is Darth Vader. The war is lost. Iraq is an indisputable mistake. Republicans are warmongers. Republicans are evil. The intelligence was faked. There were no WMDs. Nationalized healthcare is the only working solution. We MUST raise taxes. We're in a recession. Global warming is caused by man. Islam is a religion of peace. Anyone who opposes illegal immigration is a racist.

I could go on and on and on. All of the above positions can be clearly demonstrated as wrong. Yet those offering them forth insist they're right, because their intuitions and instincts tell them so. No matter how much factual evidence you throw in their faces, they'll come back and tell you you're wrong, or call you a name, or label you as insane and unworthy of being listened to.

There is plenty of evidence to back the positions I argue for here. I don't do it simply to be petty. I'm not offering it up as gospel truth. I don't claim to be the most articulate person on the planet, nor do I expect those who respond to offer their own opinions to be the same. Most of us don't have the time to dig deep into the issues I raise, including myself, so a lot of what goes into blog postings here is based on what I've observed for myself ( which can't easily be turned into evidence ), or heard on a talk radio show while commuting to/from work. None of that means I'm wrong. It just means I'm human.

I will continue to lay out my case. So far you and everyone else here have done nothing to convince me the left wing doesn't do the things I've listed. I'll also continue to deal with diversionary arguments when I see them, so don't get comfortable in thinking that calling me a lunatic is going to derail me :)

Samson said:
So far you and everyone else here have done nothing to convince me the left wing doesn't do the things I've listed.

I don't see the point. Sure, there are people who do all that you have listed. There are also "right-wingers" who say pretty crazy scary stuff too. The latter doesn't mean that all right-wingers are crazy, nor does the former mean that all left-wingers are crazy. Like I said, you seem to operate under the basic assumption that everybody is a lemming of their "side". That's fallacy by association...

Samson said:
or label you as insane and unworthy of being listened to.

Isn't that what you do too when you say that you don't have to listen to a damn word they say?

Samson said:
I'm not offering it up as gospel truth.

Well, actually, no, you are. You have said that what you say is simply the truth and there's no doing anything about it. That's about as close to "gospel truth" as you can get...

Samson said:
Most of us don't have the time to dig deep into the issues I raise, including myself, so a lot of what goes into blog postings here is based on what I've observed for myself ( which can't easily be turned into evidence ), or heard on a talk radio show while commuting to/from work. None of that means I'm wrong. It just means I'm human.

This is a truly remarkable change in tack from what you were saying earlier. I'm very happy to read the above...

It's actually not a change in much of anything. While most people who have read this topic haven't posted, some of them have emailed me to ask if it was some kind of silly experiment because they, like you, couldn't believe someone would seriously be trying to say their instinct, intuition, and "feelings" were 100% right. I wish they had commented, because they were right. Once you derailed the argument with your first response, I figured why not play along and REALLY get things going. Here we are, 40 some comments later, and there it is.

Now since this has in fact gotten boring to continue, I'll clear this up for anyone who, like David, thought I was being dead serious:

Yes, there are crazy right wing fanaticals out there. Some of whom believe everything they say, do, and write is the gospel truth 100% of the time.
Yes, there are right wing "bomb throwers" who go around saying things people find extremely offensive, simply for the sake of saying it.
Yes, there are even some right wing folks in Congress ( very few mind you ) who should be thrown out of office immediately for our own good. Ron Paul is a really good example of one such person.
Yes, there is also right wing media bias to be found out there.

Here's the problem though. The major MASS media is all firmly in the hands of liberals. Network TV news, and all but one cable news channel. there are anchor people there who call themselves journalists who are really commentators for the left wing agenda. We call them the "Elite Media". The liberal press outnumbers us something like 300-1. There have been numerous studies done in the past to prove media bias on the left, the most recent one having been done by Harvard - not exactly a bastion of right wing wackos: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278808786575124

All I'm getting at in the end is that when you challenge any of the issues of the day with the left, you'll likely end up with them giving up the argument with some form of personal attack against you. It hasn't been my experience that right wingers resort to the same thing. Unless you're talking about the ultra-right, and they don't have the kind of media power you think.

I'm not sure what it says that it was quite believable that you were actually holding that position. :-) One wonders when you stopped being serious and started playing. In any case, maybe you should go into comedy: you definitely play a very believable kook...

There's only room enough on the planet for one Pat Buchanan, and I think he's doing a better job as himself than I ever could :P