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?
.........................
RIP United States of America

July 1776 - November 2012.

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.

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.

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?

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.


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!


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...


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.


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.


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?

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

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...


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


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...


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