Like you, I was trying to understand the “chasm” between us. And I felt I’d understood you clearly when you wrote: “They oppose the Iranian regime on an intellectual level but can’t make the leap to opposing them on the only level you can effectively fight them – the gut churning emotional level where you can feel something is either absolutely right or terribly wrong. Without moral certitude in fighting the Ahmadinejad/Attas of this world, we will lose. We will lose because they are certain that they are in the right.”

This to me sounds like a call to war — a call to war based on emotion. And it seems to be saying that liberals are actually inferior because they can’t whip themselves up into a berserker rage, believing everything they do is good and everything the other guy does is evil, thus allowing them to commit unspeakable atrocities.

If I misread you, I apologize. But if you’re actually trying to bridge this “chasm,” why is it that when I respond in what I believed was a polite manner, you flew into a rage? “Don’t be an idiot.” “Read the damn post.” It’s funny, I thought that you were one of the rare right-wingers who actually liked a conversation with people who don’t simply parrot back your ideas and tell you how brilliant you are.

Oh well. I’m sure there’s one out there somewhere.

“Actually, the authorities of Poland have forbidden him, and all other Holocaust deniers, to come to Poland – and rightly so.”

I’ve learned something new today — thank you. I know that deniers have visited, but perhaps they wern’t identified as deniers before their visit.

I can understand the logic of banning them. No doubt a denier will only see what they want to see. My way of looking at it was there’s absolutely no chance of making them re-assess their views if they can’t see it for themselves, but I guess the government is taking the safer approach.

Don’t be an idiot.

To compare relying on emotions to make a decision on whether to start a war that might end civilization with being outraged at a visit to Ground Zero by a terrorist is so far our of whack as to seriously question your mental stability.

Of course you make life and death, war and peace decisions based on rational, reasoned analysis. I never said otherwise. I never hinted otherwise. You missed the point of the piece either because it went over your head or you don’t read very well. Read my excerpt in #14 above.

And next time, before you comment, read the damn post.

Maybe this sounds like mental illness to you, I don’t know. But what I do know is that in the early ’60s, back when we had a different “no more complete enemey,” — one that did actually have the power to hurt or even destroy us — the “gut churning emotional level” response to the discovery that the USSR had placed missiles on Cuba was to blow them off the island — the very response that some like Curtis LeMay advocated — despite the very real probablility that doing so would start the nuclear war that would kill hundreds of millions. JFK, although undoubtedly as gut-churned as any American president would have been under the circumstances, wisely ignored that anger and worked out a solution that calmed the situation and saved untold numbers of people.

Then, let the liberal appeasers take their stand. They will either see him as a threat to be dealt with or someone to be bought off as in the Clinton Era.

As Reagan said, the average American is smart enough to figure things out on their own and the liberals will dig themselves a little more deeper in their hole with the fly-over states.

Let him speak at Columbia, I think it will be a fun horror show to watch.

Actually, the authorities of Poland have forbidden him, and all other Holocaust deniers, to come to Poland - and rightly so.

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2005/08/19/bring-me-the-head-of-luis-posada-carriles/

And here’s what you didn’t read in my post:

Now before everyone gets all bent out of shape let me make a couple of observations. First, I believe criticism by the left of the right’s moral certainty about everything is well founded in some instances. It is just as idiotic to believe that everything is black and white as it is to believe that everything is shades of gray.

Obviously, I believe that there are times that moral certitude is required and other times where moral relativeness serves.