The 4D Nutwork of liberal debate – deride, distract, deny, demonize

Duping Americans

Liberal debate is never to prove the validity of their argument, but to eliminate the opposing argument so the observer doesn’t hear the truth.

Regardless of the subject, when it comes to the opinions of liberals they are always wrong.  21st century liberalism is based on policies that have been proven failures, are detrimental to society, and must be imposed on an unwilling public.  Destroying a liberal’s argument in debate is easy if you don’t walk into their trap to make you irrelevant.

The 4Ds of liberal debate tactics are all designed to eliminate opposing arguments rather than engage them to prove the validity of their own.

Deride – A liberal’s first defense is to express contempt for your opinion through mockery.  They believe that if they can make you look like a lair or a fool before the debate begins that they can poison the observer’s mind against you from the start.  This begins with the proposition that anything you have to say is irrelevant, incorrect, and devoid of facts.  They will say you reject science that proves climate change is real, but make no mention that they believe it is caused by man’s pollution and not by the Sun as that belief in their minds is assumed through implication.

Whatever position you have will be treated as the lesser, unsubstantiated proposition of an idiot who is too stupid to offer any intelligent information.  Quite simply you waste time and energy attempting to engage them in debate.  Better to offer your knowledge to observers who are not closed minded and who honestly seek information by which to come to a conclusion.  If there are no observers for whom to contend and the liberal starts out saying you are a racist, sexist, bigot homophobe then you should not waste your effort and simply reply;

“Since you judge me without knowing me then clearly your mind is too closed for intelligent thought and you are too stupid to be talking to me, so kiss my manly white ass and move on.”

Distract – When a liberal realizes they are losing the argument they always change the subject.  They will switch to something about which they believe you are wrong and move away from the subject that you have proven their assertions are in error.  They do this deliberately in order to make you the one who is wrong and, once they prove you are wrong on the other subject you are assumed to be wrong on the original subject.

The solution to this is to keep yanking the conversation back to the subject and not allow them to deviate and take control with a new subject.  The new subject is irrelevant and the object of a different argument.  Stick to the issue at hand!

Deny – Once you have them cornered and there is no out for them so that their defeat is inescapable, their next defense is to deny that the facts are truthful or even matter.  Like “hands up, don’t shoot,” proven to be a lie from the beginning, the liberal will say the truth doesn’t matter because the issue is that police shoot young black men, not that young black men commit twenty times more violent crime than any other demographic group.  It is a simultaneous effort of deriding the facts, distracting from the subject, and denying the truth.

Denial is an ugly thing and when a person closes their mind to the truth by rejecting all facts except those they choose they are regressive not progressive.  For people who would rather accept what they are told without examining and weighing the facts to arrive at a truthful conclusion there is no hope of making any gains in teaching them.  The person who thinks critically and examines the facts, the person who can be impressed by your argument is the observer.  That is where your attention should shift as there is no longer any point in engaging the liberal who will then turn to the final tactic.

Demonize – at the end of the argument when a liberal has been thoroughly defeated he will turn to demonizing his opponent.  “Republicans are only for the greedy rich 1%.”  “Republicans want the poor to stay poor.”  “Republicans want to enslave blacks.”  “Republicans want women to die in childbirth.”  “Republicans want old people to die in the streets without healthcare.”

Every attack gets worse as they attempt to convince the observer that Republicans are evil incarnate.  There are people who believe all of this, who believe every piece of propaganda that is spewed at them and they will regurgitate it and vomit it back without thought.  Once they hit the demonization stage where they condemn good as evil it becomes clear that their minds are too far gone to help them understand.

The people who gobble up propaganda are the most ignorant, self-righteous, hypocritical individuals.  They are fanatically devoted to their beliefs and typically the ones who form mobs and riot.  They are the 47% that Gov. Romney referred to in his condemnation of those who live off of government benefits without giving back to society because they believe they are entitled and deserving.  They are the greedy, lazy poor who cheer when government steals from the rich.

Just remember when engaging a liberal; their premise is always wrong, make them stick to the subject, keep to the truth, and show them up for the dysfunctional thinkers that they are and you will win over people who still think intelligently.  A strong mind that engages in critical thought, one that has not been subverted, will see the light and move to the Right as they learn morality and maturity from a conservative who doesn’t let liberals take control of the narrative.  Remember;

“The Left is never right.”


“Like the Force, propaganda has a strong influence on the weak-minded.”

In the crucible of political campaigns the truth is exposed by the tactics of the campaigners.  Where Democrats throw mud at Republicans to obscure the truth, Republicans strive to dig out the truth about Democrats which they try to keep obscured.  Democrats post articles claiming conservatives support liberal ideas, or want to take away people’s healthcare to poison the well of candidates for conservatives.  While Republicans want to get to the bottom of Clinton’s Benghazi failure, taking campaign donations from Islamic countries, and Obama’s efforts to make millions of illegal aliens voters while using the IRS to steal from Americans.

Both parties can be said to be attempting to poison the well of each other’s candidates, but there is a world of difference between liberal smears and conservatives revealing the truth.  It is the responsibility of the citizen to dig out the facts and uncover the truth for themselves.  Always remember that when they demonize the truth they are not acting for what is Good.

“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” – George Carlin

Liberal propaganda

Liberals will always misrepresent the facts to stifle the truth.

Don’t let Democrats poison the Republican well

Leftists base all their beliefs on false premises

Proof of fraud – the Democrat agenda to tax Americans

America doesn’t need new ideas that don’t work as well as the old ones

Related articles;

Americans don’t need Republicans who work with Democrats

The government we can only hope for – Team America

Other articles;

Christians crushed the Inquisition, Moslems endorse the Jihad

The Final Solution to Islamic terrorism

The Greatest Generation won the wars, their children are losing the peace

How Obama, Hitler, and the Star Wars Emperor are the same

Why there are no Muslims in Star Trek

(Please like, follow, and share this with your friends.  Let them know the truth.)

About dustyk103

This site is my opinion only and is unpaid. I am a retired Paramedic/Firefighter with 25 years of service in the City of Dallas Fire Dept. I have a B.A. degree in Journalism, and A.A. degrees in Military Science and History. I have spent my life studying military history, world history, American history, science, current events, and politics making me a qualified PhD, Senior Fellow of the Limbaugh Institute, and tenured Professor Emeritus for Advanced Conservative Studies. 😄 It is my hope that readers can gain some knowledge and wisdom from my articles.
This entry was posted in Conservatism vs. Liberalism, Election 2016 and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to The 4D Nutwork of liberal debate – deride, distract, deny, demonize

  1. M Simon says:

    Explain to me why Republicans still support Stalinism? We now have a left wing Stalinist President and you just notice? The game is over 40 years old.

    Nixon went after cannabis to jail his political enemies. The essence of Stalinism.

    “Look, we understood we couldn’t make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure. We understood that drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to be, but it was such a perfect issue…that we couldn’t resist it.” – John Ehrlichman, White House counsel to President Nixon on the rationale of the War on Drugs.


    And the Right has been doing this for 40+ years. But when the left does it you object? Precedent has been set.


    • dustyk103 says:

      This observation takes place with the lack of understanding that Congress makes laws, not the President. Being a moderate, Nixon was easily influenced by the liberals in the Democrat Party to sign on to the War on Drugs, just like they signed on to the War on Poverty and every other government program designed to milk taxpayers of more money.


      • M Simon says:

        I get it. Liberals made John Ehrlichman say that.

        And they also made Haldeman say this:

        “[Nixon] emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks” Haldeman, his Chief of Staff wrote, “The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to.”

        Them liberals is real clever. Getting Nixon to intensify the War On Drugs to use against his enemies. The liberals. The Blacks. The young. The poor.

        BTW Nixon WAS a Stalinist. Just like Obama he used the IRS against his enemies.

        OK. I’ll grant you he was a moderate Stalinist.


        Now given that the War On Drugs was originally (1914 and 1937) a liberal policy (I’ll grant you that) why is the last significant faction STILL supporting it the Conservative Republicans? If you go back into history they made the same mistake in 1932. Seems real stupid of them to not learn from history.


        BTW you might want to look into the history of Nixon and the Controlled Substance Act. Nixon’s own Shafer Commission suggested that cannabis not be outlawed.

        …criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only with the greatest reluctance

        Nixon outlawed it anyway. Do you think he had Stalinist purposes in mind? It fit with the rest of his MO. And Ehrlichman and Haldeman said it was his purpose.


      • M Simon says:

        Now we come to another real shocker. Ronald Reagan – in order to continue the War On Drugs (like Nixon he used it against leftists) – outlawed further research into the possibility that cannabis might be effective in curing cancer.

        My point in all this? The Right has serious moral defects that need curing. Not as many as the left – none the less they are still very significant. Think of the 10 million or so who might have been saved from cancer if the research had not only continued but had been intensified. Israel and Spain are currently doing human trials on cannabis and cancer. And if you want an interesting anecdote look up ” Dr. William Courtney brain tumor “.

        Killing 10 million to defeat your enemies (and the 10 million were collateral damage) is definitely Stalinist.

        All this will come out and the Left will use it against the Right. The end result of fighting fire with fire is to damage our own cause. We should avoid it like the plague. Because it will be turned against us. No one expects the left to be moral. The right touts itself as moral paragons. They should live up to their advertising.

        And especially – being Christian – healing the sick is a very good idea. Especially if one of God’s own plants is a miracle cure. The Pope is against cannabis. You know who is for it? The Jews. Especially the Reform Jews. They came out in favor of cannabis as medicine in 2003.

        Also look up ” Rabbi Jeffrey Kahn Tacoma Wellness Center Washington DC ” – he used to be my Rabbi. The Jews are very well educated in the function of the endocannabinoid system. Look up Dr. Raphael Mechoulam in that regard.

        BTW I’m not strictly on the right. I’m a libertarian.


      • I saw this when I came back to check your reply to me, which my email said you posted.

        I am very much opposed to the very costly and stupidly ineffective war on drugs (how can such an attempt be continued after 45 years with zero positive results? It is insanity. I give up on failed ideas in my business within a year, usually) But I had to admit I had no idea about how it started. All the pot smokers in Eugene where I live assume it is a Conservative law, because most Conservative people aren’t really crazy about stoners and their lifestyle in general. I hate assumptions, and so I decided to educate myself based on this comment and your reply.

        It was quite easy to find the composition of Congress that passed this law, who voted and which way, and I also found the actual law and read through it. It was very enlightening…

        1. The Congress in 1970 was overwhelmingly democrat. The law passed the Senate with 54 yes, ZERO no votes. 27 republicans and 26 dems voted yes, and 1 other. 30 dems and 16 repubs refused to vote on it.
        In the House, dems-to-repubs, 187-155 yes, 6-1 no, 49-31 abstain.
        So this was basically a toxic law that many opposed but they were not willing to do so overtly. But all in all, it was both parties in the senate and mostly dems in the house that passed it.

        2. The law itself had guidelines for enforcement, but mostly it left wide latitude up to the executive, in large part to the AG. I see this as a way to pass the buck on responsibility, and a recipe for the disaster that followed. The law did, however, have guidelines concerning USERS as opposed to traffickers that were very lenient, recommending short probations, treatment, and expunging convictions for people who had treatment, so as not to make them felons for life. But, again, the AG had wide latitude.

        3.. Nixon signed it, and there are statements by him and his cabinet that they supported it and disliked the counter-culture. But he did not impose anything draconian on drug users. In fact, he helped repeal mandatory sentences for users. His budget for drug enforcement went from $3 mil to a whopping $224mil from’ 68 to ’73.

        4. Jimmy Carter wanted to decriminalize pot, and ran saying so. Never did it, then changed his views when Reagan started leading in poles with a different message in ’79.

        5. Like it or not, it was Ron Reagan who took this to a whole new level of complete irrationality. He declared war for real on users, implementing harsh mandatory minimum sentences, property forfeitures against users (only used for traffickers prior), started using military and CIA to fight in Central & South American drug war, had an ’86 budget of $1.7 Billion just domestically.

        Nobody since has changed things much, until recent state initiatives. The current estimated national + states budget for drug war is $50 billion a year. $1 TRILLION spent since 1970, and drug use rates have remained pretty much the same over those 40 years. Wow.

        from 1920 to 1980, the rate of incarceration in USA went from 0.1% to 0.2%.
        From 1980 to 2010, half that time span, it went from 0.2% to 0.9%.

        According to all of this, Mr. Simon is mostly incorrect about Mr. Nixon. I give DustyK 3/5 credit for his ~3/5 correct answer, because the Dems in Congress passed a horrible, open-ended law that gave way too much power to the executive branch with zero checks and balances, but about 40% of the yes votes were Republicans. A “bipartisan” failure.

        But all in all, it was the Reagan Admin that abused that Congressional idiocy, and his admin is responsible for escalating it into the debacle that we currently think of as the war on drugs.

        Every Admin after is, in my opinion, increasingly responsible for continuing the insanity. I say “increasingly” because each successive administration had more and more evidence that the policies were not effective and how much money and law enforcement capital had been wasted prior. The only Fed policy that I support in those 40 years is, hate to say it, the current admin – they are doing nothing to stop a few states from changing policy on pot so far. Hooray for Washington, D.C.!! Finally, doing NOTHING!!! (When incompetent people finally stop doing stupid and wasteful things and just do nothing, it is like a victory. What a sad statement about our Federal government!)

        And, at the end of the day, let’s maybe lay some blame on the totality of citizens of the USA, who either supported or ignored this ongoing waste for 4 decades, or else protested it in ways that only served to keep it alive (opposition to the war on drugs may be the only initiative that has been more ineffective than the war itself in those 4 decades, and I accept my responsibility for that, as I did nothing as well as the next guy.)

        I wonder…who ended up with all that money? A trillion bucks. It wasn’t police officers, that’s for sure.

        This was a good exercise in research and kind of depressing as well. Such is the nature of learning about our government.


    • Chris Hatley says:

      These examples are exactly what the right does ,including the article itself it’s amazing really.


  2. I would like to please ask for clarification of some things you have stated. You say, and I agree it is a horrible tactic and indicative of a closed mind, that the liberal’s first tactic is:

    “Deride – A liberal’s first defense is to express contempt for your opinion through mockery. … This begins with the proposition that anything you have to say is irrelevant, incorrect, and devoid of facts. ”

    You elaborate on this idea here:
    “Whatever position you have will be treated as the lesser, unsubstantiated proposition of an idiot who is too stupid to offer any intelligent information.”
    “”Liberal debate is never to prove the validity of their argument, but to eliminate the opposing argument ”

    Your solution is to ” offer your knowledge to observers who are not closed minded and who honestly seek information by which to come to a conclusion. ” and to tell liberals:
    ““Since you judge me without knowing me then clearly your mind is too closed for intelligent thought and you are too stupid to be talking to me, so kiss my manly white ass and move on.”
    But in your introduction to this essay, and in conclusion, you say:

    “Regardless of the subject, when it comes to the opinions of liberals they are always wrong. ”
    “Just remember when engaging a liberal; their premise is always wrong, ”


    Your a-priori proposition that a liberal is “always wrong, regardless of the subject,” seems to be equivalent to the liberal’s first defense which “begins with the proposition that anything you have to say is irrelevant, incorrect, and devoid of facts.” I assume I am not understanding some of these words in the manner you are using them, but that is just an assumption, and I would be more properly respectful of you and your meaning by asking you to please help me understand the difference between what you are doing when you deride liberals’ arguments, and what you say liberals do to deride our arguments.

    If I just believe, as you say, that everything they say will always be wrong, how can I also follow your lead and “honestly seek information by which to come to a conclusion”?


    • dustyk103 says:

      This is an outstanding question! The answer is as simple as “Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.” It starts with the understanding that an observer ignorant of the situation has no information with which to begin to make a judgement. What every argument relies upon is the moral understanding of the observer. For example; in war both sides use whatever weapons they have at hand to kill the enemy and both sides are doing the same thing. But if one steps back to look at the bigger picture the will encounter the reason for the war.

      In all wars one side is the aggressor attempting to conquer and enslave the other to its will, while the other side is defending themselves. Despite this simple moral fact, confusion is easy to invoke. For instance, the U.S. entering WWII against Germany and Japan was clearly to defend ourselves and our allies from ruthless conquerors seeking to subjugate them. But the South defending against Union aggression in the Civil War, or War between the States, were defending their right to keep slaves. (Other examples in history, Romans only attacked those neighbors who attacked them first, but admittedly there were some corrupt Romans who instigated some wars. They also forced Christianity on Germanic peoples to remove their violent religions that called for attacking their neighbors to rape and pillage. Likewise there is Islam that conquered neighbors to force their religion on them, but where Christianity taught righteousness for all with the freedom to choose or reject Christ, Islam teaches righteousness only for those who submit to Islam and oppression or death for others much like the Germanic religion.)

      Moral authority in war is everything. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is a misnomer when that “freedom fighter” is fighting to enslave people rather than to liberate them. This is where the argument between a liberal’s idea of what is right differs from a conservative’s. Liberals base their values on what is good or bad, fair or unfair, not what is right or wrong. They are not synonymous.

      Therefore, while both sides claim the other side is wrong and lies, only by getting all the information one can, and having a moral understanding and will for what is Good and not condoning what is evil will one be able to reach a morally righteous conclusion.


      • Your response to my question was very thoughtful and detailed, and correct in its analysis. I have come to expect very little from most online political writers, and I must say you are a notable exception, and I am absolutely impressed with not only your answer, but with the respect it clearly demonstrates. Thank you.

        (Thank you also, BTW, for stating a willingness to tell someone to kiss your ass! I am so sick and tired of PC whiny babies who want to rule the world but act like persecuted victims if you tell them they are being a stupid dick!)

        I totally agree with your assessment that there are people out there just as you describe, and that these people are not worthy of arguing with; nor are they honest or honorable. But what I am questioning is this: Without first listening to a person, and having a bit of a conversation, how can we possibly know for sure that they are such a person? My question is a matter of labels, I believe. These people exist. You call them “liberals,” and I can agree to that. But the fact remains that a great many people, even good, honorable people but also bad people, misuse and misunderstand words almost habitually. People call people “liberals” who are not liberals, and people even call themselves liberals who have no clue and who really are not liberals, they have just been lied to about Conservative ideals.

        Please allow me to tell you why I asked the question I did…I have 3 reasons, actually:

        1. If your statement about liberals, that they are wrong a-priori, resembles the first tactic you describe that liberals use – to deride the other person and dismiss his ideas without reason – are you not in some way inviting those Conservatives who ‘lack communication skills’ (my polite way of saying that they are a-holes) to act in a manner that a liberal could point to and say to an observer – “Look, see how he just dismisses us without reason? That is what Conservatives do!” I have seen this all too often, and it frankly pisses me off when Conservative jerks – and let’s be honest, they do exist – make fools of themselves in public and become tools to some manipulative little royalist. (That is what I call these people – “liberal” sounds too much like “liberty” and they don’t deserve such an association. They are wanna-be royalty, who think they should be in charge and be able to impose their will on others, and cry and throw tantrums when anyone tells them they can’t have everything they want.)

        2. I believe we should be damn sure about a person before we dismiss them, even if they call themselves a liberal, because they might be mislead about that word, or they might think they agree with liberals on one or two issues, but in reality they are just uneducated about how issues are framed to hide true agendas. I live in a town with lots of hippy-types (Eugene, OR), and have lived here 30 years. I am an artist and craftsman, and so I interact with lots of these hippy people, and many more are my customers. They think they are liberals, almost all of them. But when I look past this label and get to know them, I find that most of them are actually very Conservative and believe deeply in the sovereign rights of the individual. Many times I have chatted with someone who talked about the need for Federal programs or such, and if I said, “You are a liberal and nothing you say is of value,” they would have taken that as evidence that Conservatives are closed-minded. Instead, I say, “Yes, more federal regulations are what we need. And the Feds also need to come to Eugene and arrest all those pot smokers who think they have the right to make personal choices and govern themselves.”

        They almost choke sometimes! I then have an opportunity to explain how pre-emption works, how the interstate commerce clause is invoked all too often, and ask them if they think it is right to impose on others without granting them the same power…Then I explain legal precedence, and why you can’t have it both ways – not legally, and certainly not morally. I am not saying that they become overnight Conservatives, but I know they think about things a little more, especially the idea that they should not be voting for laws they don’t understand.

        You are absolutely correct that dishonest, dishonorable people should be told to kiss ass and get lost. But I think it is a mistake to assume that dishonorable people can be known by a label without knowing who attached that label, and why.

        3. I, myself, was uncertain about you, to be honest. The contradiction I asked about resembled a pattern of semantics I have observed in liberal propaganda. (BTW my education is in applied linguistics, and my Army MOS was psyops interrogation analysis, 96C.) But I don’t jump to conclusions and I do not presume. I ask for clarification, I elicit information, and I listen. Again, thank you for seeing that I had a genuine question, and for giving me an equally genuine answer. That is what we need more of in this nation, for men of good faith to listen to each other and speak the truth…

        I also know that many Conserative people have called ME a liberal. I am a professional scuba diving instructor (I train new instructors as well as recreational divers), and that makes me a true-blue environmentalist when it comes to coral reefs. I have had people, not knowing my profession, tell me that my ideas about pollution are “anti-business.” I usually smile and say, “No, pollution that drains into the sea is anti-business. Just depends what business you choose to focus on…” I try to educate people about the value of God’s creation, and my industry often offers grants to other industries to share the costs of improved waste disposal. I believe that men of good faith can sit together and come to agreements that serve the will of God and the good of their community.

        But if you only knew that I was an artist, lived in Eugene, and promoted coral reef conservation, there are idiots among us who would call me a liberal, and never know that I am a former soldier, a capitalist who owns 2 businesses, the son of a Korean War hero, and a man who loves his country, his wife, and Jesus Christ, not necessarily in that order.

        That was a lot of words, but these are important things that need to be talked about openly, I believe. Too many people don’t listen, and too many people talk without thinking. Those of us who respect and honor each other by speaking honestly and also listening honestly, without making assumptions and with a true desire to understand and learn, must be role models, and show how men of good faith should be behaving. Distrust breeds distrust, but honor begets honor. You honor me by allowing me to speak on your blog, in your space, and in so doing you have brought honor to yourself, and earned my genuine and sincere respect.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. dustyk103 says:

    This exchange took place on where my posts were attacked as “spam.” Knowing that only a few dozen people would even see them in a thread where thousands look, I took to copying and pasting. My articles are not Internet garbage advertisements, but links which all contain useful information in regard to the subject being discussed. This liberal posing as a conservative had my posts blocked. I knew he was a fraud from the start with his self-righteous diatribe. It is unfortunate that liberals are able to censor conservatives, but that’s the way things are these days.

    David Walker Dusty Koellhoffer • 18 hours ago
    You posted one of those links on another NewsBusters thread, and at IJReview and Breitbart.

    You posted the same link with a little added commentary on yet another NewsBusters thread.

    Your Disqus profile is full of examples of you posting links to your own blog, often with exactly the same wording before the link.

    Is there any reason we shouldn’t just consider you a spammer?
    1 • Reply•Share ›
    Dusty Koellhoffer David Walker • 17 hours ago
    If you’re a liberal that doesn’t want the truth to be told then you would do everything in your power to make certain free speech is shut down. If you’re just a “concerned citizen” who doesn’t want the Internet inundated with spam then you wouldn’t be complaining about links to articles exposing leftist lies.
    1 • Edit• Reply•Share ›
    David Walker Dusty Koellhoffer • 13 hours ago
    As a Christian, I will offer forgiveness for your insults if you repent (apologize).
    • Reply•Share ›
    Dusty Koellhoffer David Walker • 10 hours ago
    As a Christian, I forgive you for your lies as nothing I said offered insult and I will not require an apology from you.
    • Edit• Reply•Share ›
    David Walker Dusty Koellhoffer • 10 hours ago
    If you will note, a moderator has also said that what you’re doing is spamming.

    Therefore, my statements were not lies, and you are thus proven a liar for calling me one.

    If I were you, I’d start mending fences. If you’ll note, another regular here and I were saying you could be a valuable addition to the group… however, if you keep this up, you’ll make me change my mind.
    • Reply•Share ›

    Dusty Koellhoffer David Walker • 9 hours ago
    Your impertinent attempts to exercise control along with your immoral invoking of moral authority indicate you are a deeply immoral man, a fraud, and an immature fool. If you have the power and want to ban me and deny your readers my insights the only reason to do so is censorship. So kindly bugger off. My blog does not need you.
    • Edit• Reply•Share ›
    David Walker Dusty Koellhoffer • 9 hours ago
    This is not your blog. And though I don’t have the ability to ban you, I do know who does, and I’ll point them to your obnoxious screed.

    My articles are opinion and not Internet advertising spam. I was banned ONLY because a liberal posing as a conservative used backstabbing to censor opinion and free speech. I saw through thru this guy instantly. It’s not like I’m getting paid for this blog. It’s my public service.


  4. You may or may not find this as amusing as I do, but what the heck…

    1. Deride – Explain to me why Republicans still support Stalinism? We now have a left wing Stalinist President and you just notice? The game is over 40 years old.

    And the Right has been doing this for 40+ years. But when the left does it you object?

    2. Distract – Nixon went after cannabis to jail his political enemies. The essence of Stalinism

    3. Deny – I get it. Liberals made John Ehrlichman say that…Them liberals is real clever. Getting Nixon to intensify the War On Drugs to use against his enemies.

    4. Demonize – Now we come to another real shocker. Ronald Reagan – in order to continue the War On Drugs (like Nixon he used it against leftists) – outlawed further research into the possibility that cannabis might be effective in curing cancer.

    My point in all this? The Right has serious moral defects that need curing. Not as many as the left – none the less they are still very significant. Think of the 10 million or so who might have been saved from cancer if the research had not only continued but had been intensified.
    Killing 10 million to defeat your enemies (and the 10 million were collateral damage) is definitely Stalinist.

    I apologize for answering a comment that was addressed to you by parsing a topic that had nothing to do with your essay here, but it seemed obvious to just look up the facts, and it was very easy to do…

    Hopefully you will find humor in the fact that I not only applied your analysis to these comments, but since the original topic was this analysis, in doing so I also managed to employ the analysis to fulfill its own suggested solution ” to keep yanking the conversation back to the subject and not allow them to deviate and take control with a new subject.”

    I hope Mr. Simon can also find some humor in this, or at least note with some satisfaction that he provided me with an opportunity to make a joke (albeit at his expense) by using an analysis of an analysis on 4 separate and simultaneous levels.

    I think the validity of this conceptual model has thus been demonstrated sufficiently 😉


  5. dustyk103 says:

    Steven Tucker, thank you again for an outstanding set of observations.
    You honor me, sir, far more than I feel I deserve. From your self-description it sounds like you’ve understood people your whole life like Rush Limbaugh. I have only had this epiphany since I turned fifty realizing that people speak first from ego over ignorance. But now that I understand people’s motivations and actions I feel it necessary to share that knowledge in the hope it reaches young people who, like myself, have trouble understanding people and politics. I’m still a work in progress and am wont to go on angry diatribes to vent my own frustration.
    That you point out the immaturity of the Left is what I have come to realize in the last few years. Everyone starts out a liberal. One doesn’t have to be mature, moral, or learned to be a liberal. Forty years ago I was that ignorant kid who voted for Jimmy Carter – twice!
    It took till I was thirty years old before good moral reason began to replace my ignorant idealism, and for that I can thank rational Texas Christians helping me overcome my New Jersey neurotic thinking. It wasn’t till I was over fifty years old before I fully came to understand what is today called conservatism. The reason I feel confident in beginning any argument with the proposition that the liberal is wrong is simply understanding that the position of an ideological liberal (more accurately – leftist) requires nothing on their part.
    It requires no knowledge, no morality, and a disregard of half the facts to take a stand in liberalism. They always begin their argument from the position of “it’s not fair” and “it’s not good,” neither of which has anything to do with what is right or what is legal. Theirs is the position taken by children who understand nothing of how the world works, only an understanding of their emotional response to what they perceive.
    Your posting in psy-ops clearly indicates you have understood people for much more of your life than I have, and that you understand the keys to communication, while I can still regress into childish diatribes of contempt.  Fortunately, conversation with liberals will take place despite the dedicated leftist’s attempts at shutting down any exchange of knowledge.
    I understand that no one fits any particular label all their lives. Our moral character may be established when we are young, but it is refined as we mature. Being mostly young people, liberals believe themselves to be good people and are eager to learn. It’s getting them to keep an open, observant mind capable of critical thinking that is that hard part because they are confused by propaganda.
    One of those confusions is the definition of liberalism. The modern definition of liberalism is wrong. 21st century liberalism is not the same as19th century liberalism. A 19th century liberal is today known as a Christian conservative, while today’s liberals are “social liberals” composed mostly of atheist communists. By the 19th century definition, I’m a liberal.
    But socialists learned to disguise themselves under another name, which confuses some youngsters who see themselves as liberals using the old definition. The Left does this deliberately to cover up who they truly are – Socialists, Communists, Nazis, all the destroyers of what is righteous. This is why the Left wants to fool them into believing they are good and they use propaganda to confuse them.
    The Left’s paradigm that the Far Right is Nazis and Far Left is Communist is likewise meant to confuse. The correct paradigm is that the Far Right stands for Liberty in a free society while the Far Left stands for Slavery in a totalitarian society, which both Nazis and Communists represent. The Left tries to convince them that both sides are wrong and should meet in the middle when the fact is only their ideology is wrong. My favorite Rush quote lays out this proposition perfectly;
    “When Good compromises with Evil, Evil wins,”
    The paradigm that I believe is the most accurate depiction of the Left vs. the Right represents everyone beginning as a leftist and learning righteousness over the course of their lives. Some learn more quickly than others, and some never learn. Some don’t learn because they are deeply immoral people like Obama, Reid, and Boehner who are dedicated to their ideology of self-righteousness to the degree they do not see their hypocrisy. Others don’t learn because they lack the intelligence like Biden, Pelosi, and Warren. I believe most don’t learn because they are confused by propaganda and it is for them that I write in the hopes of planting the seed for them to seek the truth rather than blindly accept what they are told.

    I think the most important lesson is in understanding that most people operate through the irrational mind that is driven by emotion over logic. I talk to people all the time that wholly endorse conservatism, but then vote for liberal Democrats only to complain about how horrible the government is, but they think Republicans are worse?! That is the power of media propaganda manipulating how they see politicians.
    Palin Derangement Syndrome and social movements like “hands up, don’t shoot,” and “I can’t breathe” are all frauds perpetrated on the ignorant. Obama marching in Selma, talking like it’s still 1950, and the NYT cutting President Bush out of the picture, plus illegals gathering there as if they are the oppressed is all political theater that easily fools our ignorant young. Exposing all of this has to begin somewhere and that is why I begin with the label that they know best – that they are liberals who want liberty, but they don’t understand that the two words have little to do with each other. And the problem I have is that I cannot say everything that needs to be said in every article or, like this response, they become so long and involved that people don’t get to the end. 😉


  6. dustyk103 says:

    P.S. Steven, I saw you responded to M Simon’s tirade and decided I would not take the time to go there because he is a deeply confused and disturbed person. Thinking that Nixon was a Stalinist is just too far gone for me to tackle. And my reply to your post was so long and included so much, I feel like I should have linked a couple of articles that made those same explanations rather than spell out how I think in such a long winded response. Personally, I think the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and government attempts to legislate morality and responsibility are like global warming and ObamaCare; they are all bogus efforts designed to milk taxpayers of their money, and they are destroying lives in the process.


    • Steven Tucker says:

      Hey Dustyk…

      Sorry I never thanked you properly for engaging in the absolute best and most respectful, honest, and objective conversation – by a few orders of magnitude – I have ever had about politics or social issues. That includes online and offline ( the one exception being the 25-year conversation with the woman I married!!). Got busy, life called…

      So, late better than never and all that, thank you. I learned something and maybe so did you but mainly, as you have noted is important, I believe any observers who read our exchange observed role-model behavior from men of good will who showed honor and respect to each other, while remaining honest and outspoken. The fact that I began the exchange by frankly questioning your statements without accusation or presumption, and that you answered without defensiveness or assumption, is illustrative of the kind of discussion our country needs and proof that such is possible when two open minds who value integrity engage each other. I frankly needed a decent antidote to a growing cynicism regarding online conversations.

      Thank you, and God bless…


      • Steven Tucker says:

        Ps…I valued your personal “long winded” response far more than if you had posted links to 3rd party articles. FAR more.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.