Friday Fun Stuff--The battle of ideologies--my own little debate with a neoconservative on MoxxiGrrrl's website

For the past week and a half, I’ve been sort of dropping out of posting on both my own blogsite Oh Well: A Commentary on News and Politics, and through The Daily Kos. Instead, I’ve been spending my blogging time over at MoxxieGrrrl.

Now MoxxieGrrrl is a pretty fun site. She’s a liberal and progressive lady, who certainly has no love for the Bush administration. I usually check her out to see what dirt she’s dug up on George Bush’s incompetence and the disastrous foreign and domestic policies that has wreaked havoc on our country. Well, MoxxieGrrrl posted a story about the one year anniversary of Katrina disaster. I skimmed the story, then went into the comments section. It was there, that I became involved in a debate with a religious, neoconservative extremist named Kirk.

Now the commentary certainly started out with a debate on the Bush administration’s policies in the aftermath of the Katrina disaster, and the anniversary of it. But then, just as quickly, the debate shifted over to President Bush’s disaster in Iraq. And then the war on MoxxieGrrrl’s site really started to heat up….

Now you can read the entire commentary thread here. Before I start with the debate, I would like to apologize in that this posting will start to get fairly long. But I think it is important in that it shows just how warped the neoconservative mind can become, and how their arguments really break down when they are confronted with a systematic and logical analysis. And believe me, I wrote fairly long postings trying to analyze and refute each statement. So now I’m going to start with Kirk’s comments that prompted me to respond.

Kirk said....StankMak (another commentator): Finally a reasonable person commenting on this cesspool of a site. It is amazing how the liberals think that September 11th murderers like Saddam Hussein would do a better job of rebuilding New Orleans than our own president. It makes me sick that rather than stand with their own country these partisan hacks choose to support the ninth ward Negrofacists that would terrorize all of America given the proper funding. How Ted Kennedy can still be free to steer this country in the wrong direction while he murders thousands of innocent people that have done nothing to harm good Americans I'll never know. Mrs. Clinton was for the sanctity of marriage before she was against it. That's not a flip-flopper, that's a whore. August 26, 2006 1:34 PM

Poppy (another commentator) said...Kirk - September 11 and Saddam Hussein do not go together, even if you put "like" between them. Please don't belittle the fact that the true mastermind of 9/11/01 is still uncaptured. August 27, 2006 9:40 AM

Kirk said...Poopy: Please don't belittle the fact that we captured the mastermind's right hand man who ordered the attacks. You make it sound like an easy job to go and arrest Bill Clinton, but without massive tort reform he'll just be acquitted. While that may be a liberal's idea of justice, a true conservative stays focused on the job at hand until it is finished. August 27, 2006 12:46 PM

It was then, that I started entering the debate on this thread.

Eric A Hopp said...Kirk: Who cares about Osama's right hand man when we could have captured the top dog Osama, who was trapped in Tora Bora? The United States failed to capture Osama because the Bush administration took its eye off Afghanistan. Instead of sending American forces into Tora Bora to finish the job, the Bush administration "outsourced" Osama's capture in Tora Bora to the Afghan militias, while transferring American forces from Afghanistan to the Middle East for its failed invasion of Iraq. In other words, the Bush administration took its focus off the real mission of fighting terrorism and capturing Osama in Afghanistan to dally with this Project for a New American Century's disaster of American imperialism in Iraq and the Middle East.

A true conservative to a "T." August 27, 2006 1:49 PM

Kirk then responded to my comment:

Kirk said...Eric: How about coming out of the fever swamp for a minute or two and join in the conversation? Nobody here knows Macaca or whoever is behind whatever conspiracy theory you've cooked up. We were talking about Clinton's collusion in the September 11th attacks and the liberals that are bashing Bush because this guy has yet to be arrested. The fact is that our president can't do anything until the courts are purged of activist judges. Believe me when I tell you that President Bush is trying his best to rectify this situation. So, while you people are off in some fantasy land letting your racist imagination run wild with thoughts of Saudi "hijackers", the rest of us are grounded in reality trying to pull this country out of the perilous situation it is in. August 27, 2006 3:44 PM

Kirk then responded to a comment from Stankman:

Kirk said... StankMak: Exactly. We have the worst terrorist attack in the history of this nation and instead of rallying around the president, these lunatics are criticizing him. These idiot liberals seem to forget that George W. Bush was in office when these attacks occurred, not Bill Clinton. President Bush is a victim, but these commufascists want to make him a scapegoat since they can't stand the fact that their hero, Bill Clinton, let this event happen.

Hurricane Katrina sweeps through the United States and the FEMA response is pathetic. Again, George W. Bush is president, again a victim, and again scapegoated by the extreme left. Nobody talks about Bill Clinton's role in the incompetent response.

Afghanistan, we have Saddam Hussein cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora. We capture him! Do these leftist propagandists give President Bush credit for a job well done? Of course not. Let me ask these socialists a question? Where was Bill Clinton then?

Iraq explodes into civil war for some reason. Who gets blamed? President Bush. Someone explain to me the logic behind this one.

Syria pulls out of Lebanon for internal reasons, the next thing we know Hezbollah takes two Israeli hostages and terrorists start blowing up buildings in Beirut. Do the liberals blame Bill Clinton? No. Again, President Bush is their fall guy for Clinton's failed policies.

I could go on and on, but I think everyone can see that whenever Clinton screws something up, President Bush gets blamed. August 28, 2006 11:46 PM

By this time, I realized that I couldn’t let this guy continue on with his hatred and his illogical reasoning. It was so illogical that he even referenced Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as being cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, rather than Osama bin Laden. What is even more amazing is that I didn’t even catch this obvious mistake—another commentator Mikey pointed that one out. But I was already trying to formulate my own response to Kirk’s constant blaming of Bill Clinton:

Eric A Hopp said...Kirk: I'm surprised that after having Bill Clinton out of office for six years, you are still blaming him for everything. Exactly how is Clinton to be blamed in a 9/11 conspiracy--by failing to take out bin Laden with the cruise missiles? If that's the case, then I'll admit the Clinton took a shot at bin Laden and failed. I've never blamed President Bush for the September 11th terrorist attacks. I certainly supported Bush in the war in Afghanistan. However, Bush seriously failed in taking out Osama in Tora Bora because he took his attention away from Afghanistan towards invading Iraq. Had Bush sent American troops into Tora Bora to close off the exits rather than outsourcing the job to the Afghan militias, and bin Laden was still able to escape, then I do not consider that a Bush failure. But President Bush never sent the American troops into Tora Bora to cut off al Qaida's escape routs--he wanted to send the troops to invade Iraq.

I don't know why you're blaming Clinton on the Katrina disaster. If it is because of New Orlean's failure to strengthen the levees during the Clinton administration, then I would like to point out that both Clinton and Bush slashed federal spending on improving the levees. In fact, in February 2004, Bush slashed spending for the New Orleans levees by 20 percent, diverting the money to the war in Iraq.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2005/08/31/bush-diverted-levee-building-funds-to-iraq/

In addition, Bush was responsible for reversing a number of Clinton policies prohibiting the development of coastal wetlands in the New Orleans area. The Bush administration was also responsible for cutting the New Orleans Corps of Engineers budget by $71 million to also divert funds to the war in Iraq and for the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/09/911_in_new_orleans.html

He placed incompetent crony Michale Brown into FEMA. And like it or not, Bush dallied for three days on his vacation while New Orleans drowned. He refused to acknowledge the magnitude of this disaster, and his efforts for rebuilding New Orleans has been sluggish--in fact, there is no money to rebuild New Orleans since the money has been wasted on Bush's war in Iraq. This president has been a complete and utter failure to this country. This country has been placed in this perilous situation we are currently in because of President Bush. And you want us to trust in Bush for pulling us out of this mess he brought us into?

What type of Kool-Aid have you been drinking? August 29, 2006 5:17 PM

Eric A Hopp said...Kirk:

The fact is that our president can't do anything until the courts are purged of activist judges.

Where in the right wing-nut field did you get this? Activist judges? And what exactly do you mean by "activist judges?" Are you talking about judges who are willing to strike down some of the most illegal of President Bush's NSA domestic spying programs? Or how about Bush's holding American citizens such as Hamdi and Padilla without charging them with any crimes, bringing them to trial, providing them legal counsel, or even presenting evidence regarding whatever their criminal or terrorist activities are? Is that the definition of an "activist judge?"

How about purging some of the extreme right-wing "activist judges?" How about getting rid of conservative activist judges who are willing to support discrimination by banning gay marriages? How about the activist judges who seem intent on imposing school prayer, or intelligent design in public schools? Shall we get rid of those "activist" judges? How about the activist judges who are willing to destroy a woman's right to an abortion? Or the activist judges who believe that American citizens should be thrown in jail because they are willing to burn a flag as a means to protest against their government. Are they also "activist judges?"

So, while you people are off in some fantasy land letting your racist imagination run wild with thoughts of Saudi "hijackers"....

How am I to be defined as a "racist" here? I have never alluded to anything racist in my comments here. Or are you coming off with the misguided belief that since I am critical of the Bush administration's war in Iraq, that I'm actually a supporter of al Qaida, having fantasies of becoming an al Qaida terrorist? And since I'm critical of the Bush administration, then I'm committing treason? Is that what you're saying? I'm critical of the Bush administration's war in Iraq because Iraq was a war of choice for the Bush White House. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks, al Qaida, or even Osama bin Laden. Iraq was set up by the PNAC neocons to create an American militaristic and imperialistic presence in the Middle East. I supported Bush's war in Afghanistan, and had he stayed in there and sent troops into Tora Bora, we would have had a better chance at capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, and dealing al Qaida an even more serious blow. I do not support the NSA illegal wiretaps, the torture sessions, the secret prisons, or the holding of American citizens without trial or counsel because these Bush administration activities infringes on all of our constitutional rights. These Bush administration activities are turning our country into a fascist state--something I do not believe in. I'm all for the Bush administration's fighting against terrorism. However, I want the Bush administration to combat against terrorism in the constitutional and legal framework that we currently have set up right now, and not to be circumventing and breaking our laws, or to be taking away our constitutional rights and freedoms. August 29, 2006 6:02 PM

Kirk’s reply went into the far right field—in fact, it went into a field of which I never expected:

Kirk said...Mikey and Eric: I agree with you that this is not all Bill Clinton's fault. Sure, he was too busy reaming the mouth of an intern to take the time to protect this nation from the likes of Saddam Hussein, but there is enough blame to go around. The fact is that the terrorist attacks of 2001 and recessions of 1990 and 2002 wouldn't have occurred if FDR hadn't shoved his new deal down America's throat(My emphasis on this quote here). President Bush has been trying hard to undue the damage FDR wrought upon this country by cutting pork barrel programs such as Social Security. Do liberals like you support him? No, you continue your unjustified attacks.

Anyone that criticizes the President of the United States during a time of war is giving comfort to the enemy. That is treason. There's a whole book about it, try reading it.

Listen, I'm not going to argue with your conspiracy theories about phantom organizations that somehow control American foreign policy or some crazy idea about Senator Obama's involvement with terrorist attacks.

I'm grounded in reality and don't have time to swim in the alligator infested waters of the liberal fever swamp. August 29, 2006 10:59 PM

I never expected anyone to blame either the September 11th terrorist attacks, or the recessions of 1990 and 2002 on Franklin Roosevelt, or the New Deal program. It is beyond my comprehension on how this connection was made. In fact, I’ve never heard of this connection even on the right-wing blogs. Now, I will say that I’ve heard of plenty of references on the Republicans trying to dismantle FDR’s New Deal programs, but to blame the September 11th terrorist attacks and recessions on it?

I couldn’t respond immediately to the quote, since I was involved with other errands and couldn’t get on the blog. Before I could make a response, Kirk also had this to say to another commentator:

Kirk said...StankMak: You hit the nail on the head. Liberals are dying off in droves as God strikes them down with HIV and hemorrhoids. When Christ returns, and these heathen swine are writhing in the streets, we will spit in their faces and Jesus will rip their beating hearts from their chests before He sends them to Hell. All the while true believers like us will be laughing our asses off in Holy inebriation. The day of reckoning fast approaches as the seventh seal is broken and trumpets blare from the heavens. Hallelujah! The Lord approaches. The GOP and Benny Hinn will administer His kingdom from Salt Lake City to Baghdad. All others will be enslaved by the Anti-Christ and the blood orgies will begin in earnest led by Hillary Clinton whipped into a frenzy by an intoxicated Ted Kennedy brandishing a six foot dildo. All the unbelievers will finally realize the truth, but it will be too late. Their fate is sealed and has been ever since Eve forced Adam to bite into the Forbidden Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. For knowledge is the ultimate sin and those that partake of it are unclean before the Lord and will be justly punished. This is why only Republicans can pass through the golden gates of our promised land: Heaven. August 30, 2006 2:13 AM

All I can say here is that I couldn’t believe the vitriol of this comment—even though I’ve seen it time and time again through the various right-wing extremist blogs. Even with my comments here, with a reasonable and measured courtesy. Granted, I’ve tossed a little sarcastic humor in my comments, but I’ve never used any swear words, and have never expressed such hatred towards the other side.

Here was my response to Kirk’s comments. First, some more sarcastic humor:

Eric A Hopp said...It is too bad the Religious Right Wing-nuts here haven't read Milton:

It is better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven....August 30, 2006 12:48 PM

And then the serious reasoning:

Eric A Hopp said...Kirk:

“The fact is that the terrorist attacks of 2001 and recessions of 1990 and 2002 wouldn't have occurred if FDR hadn't shoved his new deal down America's throat. President Bush has been trying hard to undue the damage FDR wrought upon this country by cutting pork barrel programs such as Social Security.”

Where did this nutty comment come from? The terrorist attacks of 2001 and recessions of 1990 and 2002 wouldn’t have occurred if FDR had not created his New Deal? How do al Qaida’s World Trade Center terrorist attacks get blamed on FDR? Have you run out of things to blame Bill Clinton on, so now you have to go blame FDR? Or are you trying to link President Bush’s Great War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq with Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor while FDR was president, and FDR’s own legacy with the U.S. entry and prosecution of the Second World War? None of this makes any sense.

You also make no sense in blaming of the 1990 and 2002 recessions on FDR’s New Deal policies. I’m perfectly well aware that you would love nothing more than to dismantle every New Deal government program in existence—thus remove government from regulating corporations and the economy in general. I’m perfectly well aware that you would love to take this country back to the 1870s Gilded Age—where the robber barons controlled both the economic infrastructure and the government for their own obscene profits. I’m sure you would also be more than happy to have the current robber barons of the corporate and elitist interests gain even greater power to exploit the American worker with the outsourcing of American jobs, the declining pay, no benefits, no vacation or sick time, no unionization, no health insurance, and no retirement programs—just cast the workers aside like so much refuse. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class gets squeezed out of existence. But what you don’t realize is that as you create this greater inequality of wealth between a small, elitist rich class, and an ever growing poor and downtrodden class, you’re going to end up with an economic class conflict. Like it or not, the poor and downtrodden will realize that they have nothing left to lose, and they will attack that small group of rich elites. It happened in Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, with Russia ending up with an even more insanely planned Soviet economy. It even happened here in the United States with the union riots that occurred in the early 20th century, where workers were demanding better pay and working conditions in just about every major industry. You know Kirk, did it ever occur to you that FDR’s New Deal wasn’t just to protect the American worker from the greed and excesses of the robber barons in business and corporations, but also to protect those same robber barons from their own excessive greed, and the corporations from an angry backlash by American workers who feel they are being cheated and exploited by those same corporations?

Then there is this, Kirk:

”When Christ returns, and these heathen swine are writhing in the streets, we will spit in their faces and Jesus will rip their beating hearts from their chests before He sends them to Hell. All the while true believers like us will be laughing our asses off in Holy inebriation…. All others will be enslaved by the Anti-Christ and the blood orgies will begin in earnest led by Hillary Clinton whipped into a frenzy by an intoxicated Ted Kennedy brandishing a six foot dildo. All the unbelievers will finally realize the truth, but it will be too late…. This is why only Republicans can pass through the golden gates of our promised land: Heaven.”

You have been reading too many of those “Left Behind” books there. I’ve never heard of Jesus Christ teaching this type of violence and hatred towards your enemies. Consider what Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; Matthew 5: 43-44

I also find it amazing at how you claim that only the Republicans will be the only ones entering Heaven. I’m sure that these Republican Party members also include the rich elites and CEOs of corporations—the folks who believed in Gordon Gekko’s famous quote of “Greed is good.” Was it my imagination, or did Jesus also have something to say about the rich entering Heaven:

And Jesus said to his disciples, Verily I say to you, A rich man will with difficulty enter into the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Matthew 19: 23-24

I’m not going to get into a big Bible-quoting argument here, although I will entitle you to respond with two shots against me using your own Bible quotes. But the Jesus Christ that I learned in my own Sunday school and confirmation classes, taught me about loving thy neighbor and mankind, taught me about the forgiveness of sin, and about toleration. These types of lessons can be applied to all people, whether they believe in any religious denomination or not. I guess I’m just amazed at all the hatred and vitriol you can express at those who do not believe in your own extreme views, and are so willing to express—no, to wish for the worst kind of torture, punishment, or pain against those who disagree. I thought we were engaged in a friendly debate on our differing views and the issues here….August 31, 2006 2:01 AM

Yes, I was willing to give him two Bible-quoting shots here. It amazes me at how off-the-wall these views from the neoconservatives and religious right can get. Where is the logic in it? The illogic is so far out there in that they accept this extreme form of religious hatred against anyone who disagrees with them, while at the same time accept unbridled extreme capitalism which can increase the inequalities of wealth and income between the rich and poor classes. The Republican Party supports these extreme inequalities between the rich and poor, rejecting any form of government-sponsored charities, saying that any charities to the poor should be voluntarily given. It is like Kirk can’t see the hypocrisy in this statement. He is so wrapped up his hatred of liberals and Democrats because of the Republican social issue arguments of gay marriage, intelligent design, flag burning, school prayer, that he can’t even recognize the powerful meaning of Jesus Christ’s saying that it is easier for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven. And he still believes that the Republicans will enter Heaven because of their views on the social arguments, and not because of the economic, class, or business arguments.

Now for Kirk’s response:

Kirk said...Eric: My views are very simple while yours are long winded and convoluted. You must be a government bureaucrat to come up with all that drivel. In any case, the simplest view is always the correct view.

Yes, FDR is directly responsible for the September 11th attacks. Anyone who says otherwise just doesn't understand the reality of the world we live in.

Robber barons? When someone resorts to name calling that pretty much signals that they've lost the argument. I suggest you read the documentary Atlas Shrugged and see if you still think these heros are "robber barons." In fact, this book explains FDR's failed policies better than I ever could.

I still don't understand how anyone can celebrate FDR when his policies wrecked the robust economy handed to him by Herbert Hoover. You don't have to be an economist to see the stark contrast between these two men.

But, I see the problem here. I'm talking with someone who thinks the Bolshevik's were the greatest humanitarians the world has ever known. Try learning some history here.

I don't know where you pulled these quotes from, but there is no Matthew in my Bible. I assume that this is just some Scientology crap you're trying to pass off.

Mikey: The President of the United States is elected by the nation. When you go against the president, you go against the nation and are therefore a traitor.

Major combat operations are over, but we most certainly are at war. President Bush is a war president and you are denigrating all veterans by criticizing him. August 31, 2006 10:58 PM

By this time, I had known that I had beaten Kirk in this debate. He never answered my questions regarding the connection between FDR’s New Deal programs and the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks, or the two previous recessions. He claimed that I lost the argument by name-calling by using the term robber barons. In fact, he then says that I should read the documentary Atlas Shrugged to understand the connection between FDR and the terror attacks. I have not read Atlas Shrugged, but I did go on Wikipedia to research whatever connection is there between Ayn Rand’s novel and FDR—and I still don’t understand the connection. Will I read Atlas Shrugged? I’m not sure—I’ve got plenty of other books in my library to read before I would even go out to buy Ayn Rand’s novel. Kirk doesn’t know about the Gospel according to Matthew. His responses here were so jumbled and confusing—almost like he couldn’t comprehend the complexities of the arguments I was giving him. He even proudly admits that his views are “simple” and “right,” while my own views are “convoluted” and “wrong.” Yet even with his simplified view, Kirk couldn’t explain to me this connection between FDR and the terror attacks or recession. I may have complex views, but whatever this connection is, it is way beyond my own comprehension.

So, now it is time for the final kill. I went through each of his points here:

Eric A Hopp said...Kirk:

I shall pose this question to you again: What is the relationship between FDR’s New Deal and the terrorist attacks of 2001 and recessions of 1990 and 2002? Explain to me how FDR is responsible for the September 11th attacks? Explain to me you reality on this situation? Also explain to me how FDR is responsible for the 1990 and 2000 recessions? And please don’t tell me to go read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged for this explanation. If you can’t explain to me in a few paragraphs this relationship of FDR’s New Deal policies and the September 11th attacks and 1990 and 2000 recessions, then obviously you don’t understand your own “simplified” views on these statements that you have made. Oh, and by the way, Atlas Shrugged is not a documentary, but rather it is a fictional work—a novel. Webster’s defines a documentary as a work “being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing.” In other words, a documentary is supported with documents, defined by Webster’s as a “factual or substantial support for the statements made,” or to “equip with exact references to authoritative supporting information.” This is Webster’s definition. If you can’t explain your own reasoning behind your statements regarding FDR’s New Deal and the September 11th terrorist attacks and recessions of 1990 and 2002, then your own statements are pretty much discredited and are irrelevant.

Now for the “robber barons” statement you have made. First, I never called you a robber baron. The Webster’s definition of a robber baron is “a business owner or executive who acquires wealth through ethically questionable tactics.” Wikipedia expands this definition “to businessmen who dominated their respective industries and amassed huge personal fortunes, typically as a direct result of pursuing various allegedly anti-competitive or unfair business practices. The term may now be used in relation to any businessman who is perceived to have used questionable business practices in order to become powerful or wealthy.” Robber barons rose to prominence during the Gilded Age with the giant railroad, steel, and oil trusts. You should know their names—John Jacob Astor, Andrew Carnegie, Jay Cooke, Henry Ford, Jay Gould, J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Leland Stanford, and Cornelius Vanderbilt. They were all called robber barons at one time or another in U.S. history. Shall we look at the possible robber barons of today? How about Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay? How about Dennis Kozlowski? Bernie Ebbers? John Rigas? Frank Quattrone? Finally, I would like to finish by saying Exxon’s CEO Lee Raymond got a $400 million dollar salary and retirement package this year. I don’t know about you, but a $400 million salary raises a little suspicion to me—is Raymond really worth $400 million a year? Is anyone worth $400 million a year?

Now your statement on my claiming that the Bolshevik’s are the greatest humanitarians the world has ever known. I never said the Bolsheviks were humanitarians. I said that if you have a continually growing inequality gap between a small, elitist rich class and a growing poor class, you are going to end up with an economic class conflict. You are going to end up with a revolt by the poor and downtrodden against the small, elitist rich class. And like it or not, the poor and downtrodden will choose leaders with a radical philosophy of transferring the nation’s wealth from the rich to the poor, or they will institute a harsh, state-planned economy as the Bolsheviks have done with the Soviet Union. I never said the Bolsheviks were humanitarians. I never said the Soviet state-planned economy was a perfect model of economic growth. What I am saying is that class conflict could result in a change in the system that could be even more disastrous to the small rich elitist class, once they and their controlled government is overthrown by whatever ideological “people’s revolt” there is. You want more examples of such “people’s revolts?” How about Cuba? China? Vietnam? Or just about any nation in this world that has had a Marxist revolution in one form or another? All of these Marxist revolutions have some form of economic class conflict between the rich and poor as a basis for these revolutions—whether you agree with the Marxist, socialist or communist ideologies or not. I’m not saying I support any of these ideologies. What I am saying is that in such a class revolt, the country will experience a disruptive change in the economic class structure—usually at the expense of the small elitist rich class.

Kirk, have you ever heard of The King James Bible? Have you ever heard of the Gospel according to Matthew? Ever heard of the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? I’m not much of a biblical scholar here, but it didn’t take me long to find these two quotes. And the quotation “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God,” is an especially famous saying from Jesus Christ. You’ve never heard of that? Perhaps you need to purchase a new Bible here.

I won’t even get into your Scientology quote here. It is obvious that you do not understand the cult of Scientology, and are simply using the word as a smear tactic against me. And by the way, I’m pretty much a confirmed Lutheran (Do you need a definition of the word Lutheran?).

Finally, I want to close on your statement that “the simplest view is always the correct view.” Kirk, the world is not made up of simple black-and-white terms and definitions. The world is convoluted, complex, and very difficult to understand. There is no black-and-white world, or good-verses-evil here—there are only shades of gray, shades of good or evil. When we look at policies and issues, we have to understand that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of variables that can affect the policy or issue in so many different ways—both good and bad. Even if we were to think back to what we believe is a simpler time—let’s take the United States in the 1950s for example, the issues that confronted those who have lived in the Beaver Cleaver era of the 1950s were just as complex. The difference is that we today have the hindsight and historical knowledge of history to understand those complex issues of the 1950s. But let’s consider what the 1950s American citizen had to deal with regarding complex issues back then. In the 1950s, the American citizen had to deal with the Korean War, and the rising tensions of the Cold War between the United States and Soviet Union. There were plenty of conflicts in the Cold war—MAD, nuclear war, Warsaw Pact, NATO, the Arms Race, McCarthyism, the Hungarian revolution and Soviet invasion, the Cuban revolution and rise of Fidel Castro, and the Suez Crisis and 1956 Arab-Israeli War. The American citizen had to deal with the start of the Civil Rights movement—Brown verses the Board of Education, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, desegregation of Little Rock High School in which President Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to protect the nine black students attending the high school. Or how about considering Elvis Presley’s gyrating hips on television in the 1950s—back then, that was a complex and controversial issue. This is just the 1950s—shall we go back to the 1850s, where the American citizen had to deal with the complex issue of slavery—free states verses slave states, and the Bleeding Kansas? None of these are simple issues. They only appear simple enough because we now have the hindsight of historical knowledge to study and understand these issues. And just as we may be tempted to look back in history towards what we may feel are simpler times, our children and grandchildren in 2050 may look back at our times with a fond nostalgia of those simple times. But Kirk, they are not simple times, and the issues are not simple.

But I doubt that you will understand. September 01, 2006 5:23 PM

To which Kirk finally replied:

Kirk said... Eric: There you go again... September 01, 2006 7:27 PM

In my view, Kirk conceded defeat.

So what does all this mean? I have heard of how the right-wing extremists, neoconservatives, and perhaps even the Religious Right can not support their own arguments in a reasoned and logical debate. I know that I have posted a lot of, what I would hope, was reasonable criticisms on both my own blog Oh Well, and on Daily Kos. But this was the first time that I have ever went head-to-head with a right-wing extremist—especially one who is probably a Christian fundamentalist. And I never expected that I would beat such an individual in this online debate. Does that mean that my ideas are better than Kirk’s ideas? Not really. Kirk certainly tried to defend his position the best he can, and I will certainly give him credit to that. All this really means is that we’re complete political and philosophical opposites. In a sense, this online debate is just a microcosm of the overall national debate that is raging now between two politically charged, and polarized ideologies of the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party.