I Guess I am Not the Only One Getting Banned from Debate for Being a Conservative

After recently getting banned from Democraticdiva.com’s blog for – well, I am not really sure what the exact reason is – I decided to look around to see if others have had the same problems with debating Liberals. It seems that I am not the only one. I am quite baffled at how people who claim to be intellectuals can behave in this manner. If you are going to debate, then debate! If you think my comments are genuinely wrong then let my stupidity speak for itself (aka, let me continue to debate and don’t moderate my comments).

If there is anyone out there that reads this and affiliates Left to any degree, how do you feel about this type of behavior? Do you feel that it is justified to snuff speech for whatever reason and mostly without notice or without warning?

In any case, here is an article written by Nancy Morgan of RightBias on the issue. It is over a year old, which means the problem has never changed much to this current date. Enjoy.

(Original here)

How does one debate with a liberal? Sorry, under current rules, debate is not allowed. Just as our new national conversation on race is limited exclusively to authentic blacks, so is any semblance of debate with those on the left limited to those who accept the rules of debate, as defined by liberals.

Just as Boy Clinton redefined the meaning of sex, so have liberals redefined the meaning of debate. If your view doesn’t accord with the progressive, politically correct elites, the debate is relabeled an ‘argument’, your opinion is redefined as a ‘judgment’ and both are promptly dismissed.

By controlling language, the left controls and defines the issues. Hillary didn’t lie about being under fire in Bosnia, she merely misspoke. The rules stipulate that only conservatives lie. If you’re on the left, you’re either factually incorrect, mistaken or just plain human. Liberals call this a win-win situation, which is one of the few times they are factually correct.

If the member of the vast right wing conspiracy (conservative) persists in trying to debate the original issue, liberals then revert to personal attacks. Attacking the messenger as mean-spirited usually does the trick. The indignant liberal then has carte blanche to personally vilify the messenger while touting his own moral vitas. Very effective.

By this time, the subject of the argument is long forgotten. If, however, the rude, argumentative conservative persists in addressing inconvenient facts, the liberal invariably points to ‘bad behavior’ by others, as if that excuses all bad behavior. That’s called the ‘Everyone Else Does It So It Must Be OK’ defense. Voila, the debate veers again from the original issue and turns into a catalogue of left vs. right scandals. Needless to say, if the ‘Everyone Else Does It’ defense was valid, we’d still have slavery.

If the MOTVRWC is still standing, demanding an answer to the original issue, which has yet to be addressed, the beleaguered liberal will kindly inform one and all that the debate is over. The question has been settled. Case closed. It is now time to, you guessed it, Move On.

The best scenario for liberals, however, is to avoid debate altogether. This is called the pre-emptive defense. Gore just gave us a prime example when he declared on 60 Minutes that anyone who doesn’t believe in global warming probably also believes the earth is flat. Can you spell Neanderthal? Another pre-emptive defense includes labeling any dissenting view as propaganda which, of course, is unworthy of debate.

Another neat trick the left uses to avoid debating  inconvenient facts (formerly called corruption, perjury, lies, theft, adultery, etc.) is to cry foul and whine about being taken out of context. This is called a do-over, and usually leads to more media face time to explain what they really meant. Another win-win situation. If the do-over is done with panache, the offender is magically transformed into a martyr and/or victim by a complaisant media. This is called spin. Again, it only works for liberals.

The question arises, do liberals really believe their own arguments? Does Gore really believe the earth is in crisis? Does Hillary really believe there is a vast right wing conspiracy? Do 50% of Americans really believe Bush lied? I have an inquiring mind. I’d like to know. So I set out in search of a liberal I could debate.

I started on My Space by sending a friend request to a (gorgeous) liberal guy who billed himself as open minded. He replied, questioning why I wanted to be friends with a liberal. Duh. I told him I wanted to find a liberal who could actually debate both sides of an issue. OK. He read one of my conservative articles and, to his credit, he responded with a lengthy critique. So far, so good. I wrote back, pointing out that his response dealt only with feelings, not facts. Alas, I now have one less friend on My Space. Did I mention how cute he was?

My next step: The Daily Kos, hotbed of the far left. I posted my latest article White Racism in their forum. Here’s the response:

From: kestrel9000@gmail.com
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 9:32 PM
Subject: news/031508race.aspx – your garbage

I have requested your banning from Daily Kos. We have no interest in, or use for, your filth.

When I entered the Kos forum to answer the 50 some comments on my article, I found I was no longer allowed to participate in the conversation. I had been banned.

On to the Huffington Post. I again posted a conservative article, and when I logged in to join the debate, I found that I was banned, my posting privileges were revoked. No answer from the moderators as to why.

This experience was repeated on other liberal forums. To date, I have yet to find a liberal who will debate an issue on the facts. With the one exception of my lovely niece, Sarah.

This refusal to debate on the left no longer angers me. I know that no matter how flat the pancake, there are always two sides. By ignoring and censoring debate, liberals invalidate only themselves, not the opposing view. Just because the majority of them believe something is so, doesn’t make it so. They can redefine the meaning of the word ‘is’, but ultimately, reality is defined by God, not man. To liberals, that is unthinkable. Which is probably why they don’t think about it. Or acknowledge it. Or debate it.


12 Responses to “I Guess I am Not the Only One Getting Banned from Debate for Being a Conservative”

  1. 16 October 2009 at 08:56

    Right-wingers always debate with insults. I’ve never banned anyone from my blog, but I’ve deleted posts that only contained insults. But recently, I was banned from a right-wing blog — not for insulting anyone — but for having an apposing opinion. See, right-wingers can’t win an honest debate because the facts are not on their side.

  2. 16 October 2009 at 08:57

    That should be “opposing”

  3. 3 Alan Scott
    16 October 2009 at 18:23

    Mr. Hoffman,

    Konfusing Kancer is honest. If he says he was banned from liberal blogs for mere questioning, then that is what happened. What a lot of your liberal buddies do when they come on conservative blogs, is post a large volume of dogma. When questioned on specifics they first post an even larger volume of crapp and then hurl insults at those they did not have the intellectual firepower to keep up with.

    Maybe you are different.

  4. 4 Get Real
    16 October 2009 at 22:53

    There is no point in engaging with them once you realize that they’re intellectually dishonest. That should have been painfully obvious to you once you asked a simple question and she came back with vitriol. Her asides to the leftist peanut gallery are another telling clue that you’re sitting at the wrong lunch table. She is paranoid and pessimistic: witness how she acted like you had some angle you were working and she couldn’t figure it out. It is through this that you get a true window into her worldview: the things she attacks the right for are projections of her own psychology.

    The good news is that her reach is minimal; she probably gets 100 visitors a month and most of them are from the rabid peanut gallery.

  5. 16 October 2009 at 23:31

    @Ben Hoffman: Please check out the previous entry by me entitled “For the readers of Democraticdiva.com” and tell me where I “debated with insults” as you say we always do.

    I’d also like your take on her wishing death upon me.

    And lastly, I’d like to know how I “can’t win an honest debate because the facts are not on [my] side” when all I was doing was asking questions.

    I look forward to your responses.

  6. 16 October 2009 at 23:37

    @Get Real: Hey and welcome to my blog. Good to see you over here where things are a bit more calm. I was hoping I’d see you over here. :)

    I surely hope that she does not get many visitors as you say. After that whole experience, I can see why she ran for office in 2006 here in Arizona and lost – she cannot listen, interact, and compromise with people who differ in opinion. I took very little position on her blog and I was immediately chastised and then promptly removed. I guess as I alluded to, if you aren’t a cheerleader to her then she has no use for you.

    Did you get banned too?

  7. 7 Get Real
    17 October 2009 at 01:00

    No, she threatened to notify my employer because I took an “ugly tone,” which is the basis for my charge of projection. Her vulgarity and insults are de rigueur for the statists: if you can’t answer their arguments then you can at least try to intimidate and silence them. The leftists of the past could at least be counted on to defend freedom of thought and speech.

  8. 8 Get Real
    17 October 2009 at 01:03

    The only consolation is that she’s a miserable wretch of a person (it’s an undercurrent to her writing going back for years). Realistically, you can’t be that vitriolic without it affecting you.

  9. 9 Get Real
    17 October 2009 at 01:04

    Oh, there’s also the fact that she doesn’t have kids. Can you imagine being raised by that?

  10. 17 October 2009 at 05:41

    How would you posting on a public forum mean anything to your employer? and how did she find out where you work anyways?

    I didn’t know she had kids. I know her through other people – they said she was just as bitter back then as she is now. But, I would be pretty scared to be raised by her, as you alluded to.

    Also, don’t you think it is interesting how people like Hoffman above come in and stay throwing around blanket statements and that is acceptable? No, thank you very much, please do not use that collectivist thought with me. :)

    We will have to see if he takes me up on my challenge of finding where I was insulting her.

  11. 17 October 2009 at 06:29

    Oh and one more thing. I did enjoy the exchange you had with her on your post 7. :)

    I love how she assumes she knows so much about everyone.

  12. 12 Al
    7 February 2011 at 23:18

    “Hillary didn’t lie about being under fire in Bosnia, she merely misspoke. The rules stipulate that only conservatives lie. If you’re on the left, you’re either factually incorrect, mistaken or just plain human. Liberals call this a win-win situation, which is one of the few times they are factually correct.”

    “Liberals” don’t pretend to have any moral standards. Conservatives do. When a “Liberal” lies, cheats, gets caught in flagrante delicto, (s)he/it hasn’t violated his(her) moral standards, having none. But when a Conservative gets caught in the slightest misstatement, (s)he has violated Conservative morals, therefore should be pilloried.
    To recognize this, the “Liberal” has to be able to see the moral standard but just refuse to honor it him(her)/itself.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain



%d bloggers like this: