..when did it ever get to the point that the Left claims to have the absolute lock on “the truth” and that they alone “are in the right”. When did they suddenly become endowed with the all encompassing and all knowing wisdom that makes them the sages of the ages?

When, pray tell, did all of a sudden the Great Poobah descend from His Holy Mountain and hand the Holy Writ of Sacred Knowledge to the likes of Cindy Sheehan and Hillary Clinton?

Who made them the ultimate arbiters of what is correct and what is not?

Hey..I’ve checked, but I still can’t seem to find it….what am I looking for? Oh yeah…the piece of paper that says I have now handed over my free will and all beliefs to you to determine as you deem fit.

Last I recall, I do not ever remember giving anyone the right to dictate to me what I am to do, think, or say?

Why and when was it decided that to support the war one has to “sign up?” Who gave you the authority that says “Everyone else is wrong and only you are right?” Who are you to tell me anything??? Who was it that all of a sudden decreed that you were the “arbiters of Mankind” and that everyone else must toe the line of “global warming” “, or be branded a “denialist?” when the science itself is questionable??

What says that I am wrong in regards to what I believe may be the outcome of the war in Iraq vs what you claim is “the truth”? Do you have a crystal ball?? A pipeline into the Joint Chiefs of Staff?? Access to Presidential briefing papers? A seat in the Situation Room??

No??

Who says I don’t have the right to make up my own mind??

How is it that you can never be wrong??

Was it a tablet from On High that gave you infallibility to a level even the Vicar of Rome would envy? I still can’t find it…can you send me a copy of the piece of paper that was signed by me, signing away every right I have, every free thought, every free opinion, because all of a sudden you are the ultimate authority on every fucking subject under the sun???

I know you won’t find that document…because it doesn’t exist and never will.

To the loonies of the Left, I have this persistent question in the face of your unbelievable arrogance and arrant hatred of anyone who would dare disagree with your eternal prescience of the Known Universe…

…who died and made you Pharoah in Egypt???

Said Sonnabend @ 8:51 am | Permalink   

1. You wrote, “…when did it ever get to the point that the Left claims to have the absolute lock on “the truth” and that they alone “are in the right”.

   It never did. You certainly don’t list any examples.

   “Who made them the ultimate arbiters of what is correct and what is not?”

   No one did because they aren’t.

   “I still can’t find it…can you send me a copy of the piece of paper that was signed by me, signing away every right I have, every free thought, every free opinion, because all of a sudden you are the ultimate authority on every fucking subject under the sun???”

   Sounds like someone who’s followed the far-right line for the last six years and is tired of getting beat up over and over again with no way to defend himself. Can’t use the facts, no past track record to point to…better to just curl up in a ball and cry about these nasty “loonies on the Left.”

   Suck it up, buttercup. You don’t see Dick Cheney crying. Of course, you don’t see him in public either, not with his approval ratings. I’m sure it’s hard out there.

   Comment by Max Power — 1/23/2007 @ 11:09 am

---

2. Source(s)?

   Comment by Beaming Visionary — 1/23/2007 @ 11:56 am

---

3. This is called an opinion piece. Get over yourselves.

   Comment by Cao — 1/23/2007 @ 5:26 pm

---

4. Now I’m starting to think you guys are pulling my leg. An opinion piece doesn’t need proof to back up those opinions? You make random hysterical statements without any logic or justification and…that’s good enough? Wow.

   I mean, a lot of the “opinions” you see out there are just that–hysterical statements without any logic or justification. But they at least PRETEND that what they’re saying has some basis in reality. But to come flat out and ask “Source(s)?” To come flat out and say “this is called an opinion piece”?

   Wow.

   Comment by Max Power — 1/23/2007 @ 5:47 pm

---

5. Here’s an opinion piece, do you see any links in it? Here’s another, there are no links in it. Here are some more, I don’t see any links in them.

   Since when do we have to do things according to your rules and why does the world have to bend to your definitions?

   Comment by Cao — 1/23/2007 @ 6:17 pm

---

6. Congrats, you got me to read a Peggy Noonan column. Astonishing, that she has a column at one of the most respected newspapers in the world. True, everyone with a brain knows to ignore the editorial page, but still.

   I didn’t see any links in Noonan’s goofball column, but I didn’t ask for links. I asked for examples, proof, logic, reasoning. More than pointless whimpering. Noonan at least makes an argument and supports it. She explains what advantages she thinks bloggers have over “mainstream” journalists, what tools they use, the blogosphere’s constant self-correcting. She argues and presents information to back up those arguments.

   She didn’t just bleat, “When did bloggers suddenly become endowed with the all encompassing and all knowing wisdom that makes them the sages of the ages?” She didn’t just whine, “Last I recall, I do not ever remember giving bloggers the right to dictate to me what I am to do, think, or say?” She’s not content with this passive-aggressive “I’m a victim!” nonsense. I’ll give her that much credit. I may disagree with her, but she at least gives me something to disagree with.

   Comment by Max Power — 1/23/2007 @ 8:33 pm

---

7. Hey Max…you lot didn’t appreciate when the proof was tendered showing the Killian memos were fake..and yet you still hold onto them as genuine.

   As for the Vice President,. who said you have any idea what his agenda is or where or when he shows himself? Do you know the man?

   Have you met him?

   No?

   Then you were spouting an opinion, were you not? Gee….looks like you like having opinions, but you dont like it when others have “random statements” because they don’t agree with you.?

   Colour me surprised.

   And I am not right wing, I’m not even an American..I am just another blogger sick to death with your crap.

   Piss off.

   Comment by Sonnabend — 1/24/2007 @ 1:37 am

---

8. Hey Max here’s a Liberal Left “lock on truth”

   “Bush Lied”

   Here’s another:”Global Warming”

   Here’s another:”There were no WMD’s in Iraq”

   The Left says these are gospel and woe betide anyone who dares disagree with them.

   Perdition be to those who dare criticise or question the Holy Writ of Al Gore

   …the same man who failed to be elected President..oh yeah I forgot that election was “stolen” (another “truth”…which of course has jack shit proof to back up said claim)

   Plague be on those who dare ask for proof as to where or when the President has lied…yet it’s “the gospel according to St Cindy”, so it MUST be true…..and those who dare question her God ordained sanctity to pursue the President to the ends of the earth in pursuit of her “justice” are “far right”….

   ..so I ask the question again?

   Who do you think you are?

   Comment by Sonnabend — 1/24/2007 @ 2:09 am

---

9. It just strikes me that they’re clueless if they need links provided in every piece; particularly if it’s just an opinion piece.

   We don’t need to stinking links, we just need common sense! A trait which the left seems to be short on.

   Comment by Cao — 1/24/2007 @ 4:23 am

---

10. Max.It’s my opinion. I don’t walk in lockstep, I don’t subscribe to “memes”. I do as I please.

    It’s my opinion.

    If the Left had its way, said opinion would be squelched in favour of their “inconvenient truth”

    Bite me.

    Comment by Sonnabend — 1/24/2007 @ 5:02 am

---

11. I think what they’re trying to say is we’re not allowed our opinions, and we need to back everything up with something that someone else said.

    

    Comment by Cao — 1/24/2007 @ 5:07 am

---

12. Tell ‘em not to hold their breath.

    Comment by Sonnabend — 1/24/2007 @ 5:15 am

---

13. I am of the opinion that Max and Sonnabend don’t agree, but I have no proof……oops, yes I do, just read everything above.

    Comment by Richard Nixon — 1/24/2007 @ 6:23 am

---

14. Oh, how effortlessly I ruffle the feathers, with such ease do I roil the waters! Introduce a little intelligence into a discussion here and watch everyone go into hysterics. It’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad. Nah, it’s still pretty funny.

    Sonnabend wrote, “As for the Vice President,. who said you have any idea what his agenda is or where or when he shows himself? Do you know the man?”

    No, I don’t know the man. But I do know that he doesn’t appear in public very often (except when he’s having a heart-to-heart with Rush Limbaugh). I also know that that his approval ratings are in the toilet and have been there for years. These aren’t my opinions–they’re facts. If I were to say, “Vice-President Cheney does not appear in public because he’d be pelted with rotten tomatoes by the populace”, THAT would be an opinion. I would have to provide proof to support my claim (say, a sudden increase in tomato prices in areas where the Vice-President intends to visit).

    I still find it amusing that Cao says that “…they’re clueless if they need links provided in every piece,” when I’ve said twice now that it isn’t links I’m specifically looking for, but proof/evidence/reasoning/logic. Links can be a means to that end, but of course that depends on who you’re linking to and how strong THAT poster’s argument is.

    Sonnabend writes, “It’s my opinion. I don’t walk in lockstep, I don’t subscribe to “memes”. I do as I please.

    “It’s my opinion.”

    Good, I like that so far. He continues, “If the Left had its way, said opinion would be squelched in favour of their “inconvenient truth””

    Have you seen “An Inconvenient Truth”? What did you think of it? Specifically, what parts did you not agree with? What have you read about the subject of global warming? Does the possibility concern you? If not, why not? Have you come to your conclusions through study and careful analysis…or are you merely walking in lockstep with right-wing orthodoxy?

    Sonnabend also writes, “..so I ask the question again?

    “Who do you think you are?”

    How about I tell you what I’m not. I’m not a crybaby. I don’t think of myself as a victim, nor do I think victimization is a healthy political attitude to hold. I’m not a coward. I come by my beliefs after careful consideration and when I see them trampled I’m not shy about defending them. And I’m not lazy. I don’t just talk crap because talking crap is easier than thinking.

    My job as a citizen is to be educated and informed about the issues and act accordingly. To vote for the right candidates, support good policies and oppose bad ones. I have nothing but contempt for people who are eager to hand over our rights as citizens to the government in exchange for lessing our responsibility to be educated and informed.

    And when I see nonsensical rantings like the original post (and other posts I’ve seen here) I stand up and point out, “This is nonsense, and here’s why.” Just in case someone comes by and thinks, “You know, maybe all the problems of the last six years are really the fault of those doggone liberals”. They might see my comment and think, “No, he’s right, the Republicans have been in power the last six years, they should be held to account for their own incompetence and stupidity”. And not only have I done my duty as a citizen, I’ve done my good deed for the day.

    Sonnabend wrote, separately, “Piss off” and “Bite me”.

    To that I say, “No”, and, “No thanks”.

    Richard Nixon wrote, “I am of the opinion that Max and Sonnabend don’t agree, but I have no proof……oops, yes I do, just read everything above”

    That’s excellent. EXCELLENT. States an opinion, provides compelling evidence. What more could one want?

    Comment by Max Power — 1/24/2007 @ 2:32 pm

---

15. “When did bloggers suddenly become endowed with the all encompassing and all knowing wisdom that makes them the sages of the ages?”

    physician, heal thyself

    Comment by Rich — 1/24/2007 @ 2:51 pm

---

16. Good one Rich, here is a quote I heard once and use frequently, but never here on this site because the effect must be seen to be enjoyed. Say this to soe high school or college kids that say something ludicrous. “Its good to see the confidence of ignorance is still strong in todays youth”. I suppose I do not use it here because I don’t know how old some of the posters are, but if you replace “youth” with “liberal” or “skin head” , or the label of your choice it would still be funny……unles you use it on me of course

    Comment by Richard Nixon — 1/24/2007 @ 5:55 pm

---

17. Have you seen “An Inconvenient Truth”? What did you think of it? Specifically, what parts did you not agree with?

    All of it.Global warming is a myth.A lie.Hysterical ramblings.

    Gore doesn’t practise what he preaches

    Guess he never learned what telecommuting or TV conference does.

    Global freezing anyone?

    What have you read about the subject of global warming? Does the possibility concern you? If not, why not?

    It’s a lie.Thats why.And if Gore is so concerned about it, and so is the rest of the left, then why are they so reticent to do anything about it?

    If Michael Moore is so against the “war profiteers”, why does he have shares in Halliburton?

    Who says I am right wing? I’m not even an American.(missed that in my last post, did we?).

    Oops.

    Comment by Sonnabend — 1/25/2007 @ 1:47 am

---

18. I ask if your views on global warming are in lockstep with right-wing orthodoxy, and to deny this you link to…the Drudge Report and World Net Daily. Thank you for making my argument for me. Saves me some time.

    When asked what about the idea of global warming you disagree with, you say, “All of it.Global warming is a myth.A lie.Hysterical ramblings…It’s a lie.” Projecting your own hysteria, perhaps?

    I did notice that you said you aren’t an American in your previous posts, but I don’t know how it’s relevant to the discussion. I also didn’t say you were right-wing; I said you slavishly follow right-wing talking points rather than think on your own. Again, you make my argument for me.

    Comment by Max Power — 1/25/2007 @ 6:57 am

---

19. Max, as far as I am concerned you are so full of it, you squeak going around corners.

    I’ll quote whatever I damned well please, I am not required to explain myself to you.

    And by the way….were you to say to anyone that knows me well (and thats not you, jackass, you don’t know me from a hole in the wall) that I slavishly follow anything…they’d die laughing.

    I think for myself, idiot…is that so hard for you to fathom?

    That I, of my own accord, of my own opinion, have decided that global warming is a load of fetid dingoes kidneys, and I really don’t give a rats ass whether you approve or not?

    My views are not “in lockstep” with anyone..which is PRECISELY the point of my original article!!

    Gawd…you are dense.

    Comment by Sonnabend — 1/25/2007 @ 7:03 am

---

20. And that, Max, is my opinion. Now sod off.

    Comment by Sonnabend — 1/25/2007 @ 7:09 am

---

21. I just spent a week in Miami at the National Hurricane Center participating in a Hurricane preparedness course, the place is ful of PhD climatologists. The class we had on global warming stated that “yes, global warming has an effect on huuricanes and wind speeds, but it is on the magnitude of about 5 degrees a century, so Katrina as an example may have had 1-2 mile an hour faster winds, negligable.” Additionally thay showed data going back as far as it has been recorded and it clearly shows cycles in the weather. Like I posted once before a long time ago. I read a book called (non fiction, historical) the “highlanders”, in this book the author described the decades old warm period in Scotland that ruined crops and forced migrations. This happened circa 1740, long before President Bush failed to sign Kyoto (these arguements always end in Bush bashing so I start my defense early).

    This is cross posted at “Global Warming Backpeddling” also on this site.

    Comment by Richard Nixon — 1/25/2007 @ 11:37 am

---

22. They’re not interested in facts, they’re just interested in their attacks on us as though that’s going to force us to shut up.

    It began with the scare over nuclear weapons. In 1962, we were probably the closest ever to nuclear war between the superpowers, but a year later, the US and Soviet Union signed the Limited Test Ban prohibiting all nuclear tests in the atmosphere and oceans. This could be the first law to prohibit environmental pollution.

    During the ’60’s, the fusing of the civil rights and peace movements with environmental activism took place. Victor Scheffer points out that here is a natural affinity between peace and civil rights activists and the environmental movement, because both movements appeal to people with strong egalitarian sympathies.

    It drifted from ‘conservation’ to ‘environmentalism’. First, in the late 60’s and early 70’s, peace and civil rights movements and the second in the late 80’s and it continues into the present. Militant environmental lobbying groups including Greenpeace, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, were born in the 60’s, and old line conservation groups like the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Foundation and the Audubon Society fell in line with the radicalization. During the 70’s, environmentalists began to voice their interest in other issues when environmental issues waned.

    The activism inspired by the real possibility of a nuclear holoaust served as the training ground for what we see now; the apocalyptic environmentalists who scream that the sky is falling with this crap over global warming.

    “The politicization of science; the revolving doors between government agencies in charge of environmental affairs and environmental advocacy groups; the symbiotic relationship among activists, the press, and politicians, all of whom thrive on a crisis atmosphere; the massive propaganda campaigns involving public schools, church organizations and civic clubs, the call for massive government intervention and international control–all were policies and strategies developed and refined first by antinuclear and peace activists.

    For instance, New Left peace activism and environmentalism were combined in the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The UCS emerged from a one-day research strike and teach-in at MIT in March 1969. During the MIT strike, faculty and students discussed the atomic bomb, the Vietnam War, and the world food crisis. The UCS’s founding ‘faculty document’ called on scientists and engineers to ‘devise means for turning research applications away from the present overemphasis on military technolgoy towards the solution of pressing environmental and social problems’.”

    EcoScam, The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse, by Ronald Bailey, pages 34 and 35.

    It just goes to show that what’s happening today is just an extension of what has been at work for a long time in engineering and science; which my dad, who is an MIT-educated engineer, is fully aware.

    Hell, Michael Moore is a self-proclaimed GREEN activist, and he put together Fahrenheit 9/11, the shlockumentary about the Iraq war.

    The “Greenhouse effect” is actually a misnomer; greenhouses keep warm by preventing outside breezes from cooling the air inside them, not by trapping and reradiating heat. Ecoscam, page 143.

    “Attempting to predict the behavior of the earth’s climate, some climatologists have created complicated computer models, called General Circulation Models (CCMs). Today, the leading climate models calculate that doubling carbon dioxide to 600 parts per million should increase average global temperatures between 1.5C and 4.5C degrees (2.2f and 8.1F degrees). Note that the higher figure is very close to the values calculated by Arrhenius a century earlier. However, recent projections made by German and British GGMs lowered predicted global warming to only 1.8 to 3.4 (1 to 1.9C) degrees.
    The models are far from perfect-they must be ‘tuned’ in order to achieve global warming. Ecoscam, page 145.

    So there’s plenty of evidence from a lot of scientists that question the theory of global warming, and the impact it would make if we would stop contributing the evil ‘greenhouse gases’ they’re screaming about. It’s not only the ICR scientists, but it’s all scientists who are interested in science, and who aren’t receiving government money for their biased research and conclusions.

    Comment by Cao — 1/25/2007 @ 4:59 pm

---

23. environmentalists and the Global Warming Scare

    At TWA, we’re having a discussion in comments about the environmentalists and Global warming, and as usual, I refer to the scientists at the Institute for Creation Research. I am naturally ridiculed, as leftists start with their wailing using so…

    Trackback by Cao's Blog — 1/26/2007 @ 5:03 am

---

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website