Summary 2020 Presidential Election Fraud - By John C Wright

Found here. Important information.

--------------------------

Below is a report on the voter fraud in the 2020 Election campaign which recounts the voting irregularities and illegalities in one tidy summation. I reprint it here because it is being ignored or libeled by the press.

As best I know, no point-by-point rebuttal, answer, or explanation exists for these allegations.

The endnotes are extensive, and I hope were transferred here accurately. If not, please tell me.
Summary of Election Fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election in the Swing States

“Out of fraud no action arises.”

Introduction
Georgia
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania
Arizona
Michigan

Introduction

It has often been repeated there is “no evidence” of fraud in the 2020 Election. In actuality, there is no evidence Joe Biden won.

Ongoing investigations in the Swing States reveal hundreds of thousands of votes were altered and/or not lawfully cast in the Presidential Election. Joe Biden needed them. On Election Night Nov. 3, 2020, President Donald J. Trump was sailing to reelection with landslide leads in numerous battlegrounds.

The Worst People Run for Office. It’s Time for a Better Way. - by Adam Grant, NY Times

Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------------

This is what the "newspaper of record" has been reduced to, a parody of a news organization. We are living in times where satire is indistinguishable from journalism.

Here is a COLLEGE PROFESSOR who thinks that democracy would be best served by eliminating voting. This not only speaks to the state of journalism, but also the educational system.

--------------------

The problem with democracy and the Left

Introduction

Democracy at its base is simply rule by majority vote. It is historically based on the power of the common man as opposed to the rich or the nobility, and not based on the principle that all men are created equal. The power of the elite is negated by democracy because everyone votes no matter their wealth or status. All men are not created equal in a democracy because the majority can vote in whatever policy they want, even to the detriment of the minority.

And in fact, those who support democracy often do so because of the power of the majority, who of course is mostly the common man, can be used to target the monied and powerful. Thus democracy can be used as a tool to "even the playing field," at least as far as it applies to class conflict.

The Founders and Representative Government

There is, however, no intrinsic virtue in democracy. The process of democracy does not automatically yield fairness, justice, or even good policy. It is often a tool of brute force, where outcomes are forced onto society by special interests who invest lots of time and money into swaying the vote in their favor.

This "tyranny of the majority" (Alexis de Tocqueville) was held in contempt by the Founders as mob rule. Democracy fails as soon as the majority learns it can vote benefits to itself, especially if funded by redistributive taxation that punishes the rich.

The Founders were extremely suspicious of government power. They had lived under the abuses of Great Britain. They were students of history. They understood tyranny. This is why the Founders instituted a limited representative government. Such a system puts a layer between the vote of The People and the implementation of government policy. It was thought that if The People voted for their representatives, and those representatives could be voted out at the end of their terms, then the decisions of the representatives would perhaps be more circumspect.

How capitalism made the world sick. - By Sarah Jones

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

Here we have another "progressive" attempting to explain economics. Nearly all progressives and leftists begin with a caricature of capitalism, building their entire world view on a lie. They compound the lie by suggesting that progressivism/socialism, or some part of socialism, is the solution.

Capitalism is simply the willing, legal, eyes-open exchange of value. Anything illegal, shady, or exploitative is a violation of capitalism, not features of it. 

The agitprop component of socialism is particularly effective among those who have already accepted the false premise of the caricature of capitalism. A typical leftist will plunge headlong into any pronouncement, factoid, or narrative promulgated by the leftist machine.

The below article is just such a thing.

-----------------------------

Republicans Hate Voting Rights Because They Threaten White Power - By Elie Mystal

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

Mr. Mystal will trot out every single leftist talking point in a vain effort to make a coherent argument. In fact, he's not making an argument at all, he's bomb throwing.

------------------

The Many-Tentacled Kraken of Present-Day Fascism - By Wayne Madsen

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------

Mr. Madsen doesn't seem to know what fascism is. Nor does he understand the irony of his own position being fascistic.

Fascism has morphed in meaning to the point where the term is meaningless. The way the author uses it, fascism is simply people doing things or thinking things he doesn't like. The fact that he wants to edit, control, shut down, or manipulate dissenters is fascistic.

As you read this you will find a stream-of-consciousness spew of words which is intended to mean something, but it is impossible to determine what. Mr. Madsen simply mentions a person (Steve Bannon, for example) without any explanation, then connects the person to another random name (Guo Wengui, for example), and leaves it to the reader to try to figure out why these names are important and how they're connected.

The sheer meaninglessness of this article is in itself boggling.

 Mr. Madsen is generally recognized as an out-there conspiracy theorist. 

--------------------

How Does America Solve Its "Fake News" Crisis?- By Thom Hartmann

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------

Typical leftist obfuscation. The author doesn't even understand what fake news is, preferring to conflate and divert until it is impossible to know what his point is.

We weren't able to finish reading this screed. The author goes on and on complaining about evil right wingers who are simply doing what the Left has done for decades. Tthe author is engaging in Mountain Man's Law. Everything he tells us about the Republicans is something the Left is actually doing.

The author is blissfully unaware that he is fake news, that is, someone who disseminates information designed to manipulate, not inform. So to "solve" the problem, he should stop writing.

And by the way, why is it America's problem to solve? Of course he means government. Ever the leftist, the "solution" is government. But government has no authority to make any law regarding free speech:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

---------------

Repositioning an Insurrection: How Republicans Could Transform January 6 into a Day of Triumph - By David Gumpert

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

This is craziness from beginning to end. The author employs every leftist rhetorical device he can think of to equate Trump with Hitler, finding connections where none exist, making outlandish assertions backed by no evidence at all, and constructing scenarios that can only be described as the product of a fevered imagination.

--------------------

Guest column: The Montana Legislature’s power grab should inspire all into action - By Abby Sophir

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

The author is an extreme leftist who belongs to an extreme leftist "advocacy group," Forward Montana. The staff seems to consist of nothing more than a bunch of 20-somethings who describe themselves in the manner of 7th graders: 

Angie can be found sitting cross-legged in their chair or laying on the floor while they figure out how to make cute graphics that gets people excited about democracy!

Kenzie can be found making reliably undignified facial expressions during Zoom calls and happily wrangling a small but mighty herd of interns.

This is apparently how a leftist community organizer organization attracts young volunteers, by being hip and with it. But the disarming nature of these statements should not deceive us into thinking this group is innocent fun. They're hardcore leftists.

We also suspect that Forward Montana is a front group for Soros-like billionaire operators, as well as youth-connected local leftist groups. In addition, Governor Bullock's COVID relief fund sent them $75,000 (!)  They spent $40,000 of it on political advertising. 

In a manner similar to its website, the below article comes across as innocuous and largely absent the incendiary rhetoric usually employed by leftists. It is carefully crafted to appeal to as many people as possible. One must read between the lines to discern the actual message being offered, and that message is boilerplate cultural marxism dressed up in language about equality and human rights.

Lastly, we will read about the "losses" they experienced in this last legislature. What this means is the status quo was defended against the onslaught of leftist classism, which for them means no "progress" was made. That is, no change really means regression. So if their radical agenda does not progress, it is a step backward.

-------------------

The Problem of Private Schools - by Sparky Abraham

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

The author cannot make up his mind. Are private schools worse or better? Should government control schools or is indoctrination bad? 

-------------------

It’s a well-known fact that private schools perpetuate inequality. But is abolishing them the answer? (It's a well-known fact? Really?)

Our mystery begins with my hometown of Santa Barbara, California, which has some of the best public schools in the country. This isn’t just hometown pride speaking: They really are top-notch public schools. And why shouldn’t they be great? Santa Barbara is an extremely wealthy area. Residents include Oprah, Rob Lowe, Ellen Degeneres, Jeff Bridges, and Kevin Costner. The median home price hit a million dollars way back in 2004. It dipped during the recession (all the way down to $845,000) but has since recovered and is now over $1.2 million. Santa Barbara’s well-funded public schools tend to place in the top quartile of schools in California, and doubtless outperform many private schools in other towns. No one would call the schools in Santa Barbara “bad.” They are manifestly good.

What a blessing, you might think. Sure, it costs a fortune to live there, but good public schools! Free, high-quality public education is a huge asset—it’s a major determiner of property values in the first place. (Undocumented statement.)

Oh—you might think—how wonderful to be free from the private/charter/magnet/public battles, free from planning kindergarten applications at birth to set up your kid for the application for elementary school in order to put them in the best position to get into the right middle school, which is so important for getting them into a good high school, which of course is essential for admission to the right college, which will be basically required for their law school application. No need for any of that in Santa Barbara. You can just go sign ‘em up.

But here’s the mystery: Santa Barbara also has a thriving industry of private schools. (The fact that the author considers it a mystery is revealing. He cannot understand why parents would choose private education for their children. Really, the issue is that parents CHOOSE. He doesn't like their choices. Parents shouldn't have that choice. That's his real problem.)

Why Overturning Citizens United Isn’t Enough - BY ADAM EICHEN

Found here. My comments in bold.

-----------------

You don't have to think our democracy works perfectly to be appalled at Donald Trump's attack on it. (The author is not off to a good start. In one perfunctory sentence are several howlers:

1. The article is supposed to be about Citizens United, not Trump
2. We don't have a democracy, we have a representative republic
3. The author admits our system doesn't work perfectly, yet doesn't tolerate Trump's "attack"
4. Trump did not "attack" democracy

But this is typical hyperbolic leftist rhetoric: Distract, distort, amplify, exaggerate.)

Is ‘democracy’ dead? - letter by LaVon D. Brillhart

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

-------------------

Here's an example of a guy who gets a lot of it right, but after chronicling the various failures of society, he comes to a completely astonishing conclusion. Read on:

-------------------
Is “democracy” dead? (If it were ever alive. We never had a democracy, despite some of the best efforts of the Left to create one. We are, and remain, a representative republic.) 

Is “democracy” on its last legs? It seems that government has become an appendage for the super rich and big corporations. (Quite true, but why?) 

But on the other hand, government has become an unwanted growth for the middle class and the working poor. (Again, quite true. But again, why?) 

Now we have a government that is grid locked. (Apparently the author thinks gridlock is bad. But gridlock, aka checks and balances, is a needed restraint on government to prevent the accumulation of too much power in one branch of government.)

It seems that with what has not been accomplished for America many in Washington are destroying America and “democracy.” (I think the author mistakes passing laws for accomplishment. Often, the prevention of passing laws is better, especially bad laws like ACA. It would have been nice to have some gridlock for that monstrosity. It would have spared us all a lot of pain.)

The Supreme Court has made it quite clear the middle class and the working poor have no voice in America. But the Supreme Court said that big corporations and the super rich have the right to invade and conquer “democracy.” (I think he's wandering off the tracks a little now. He's basing his statement on rulings like "Citizens United," I'm sure. Which means he's bought into the leftist narrative about what the ruling did. It had nothing to do with buying off elections, but try to tell that to a Leftist.)

Why do we need senators and representatives? There are more than 12,000 lobbyists in Washington. That is 22 lobbyists for every member of the House and Senate. Now representatives and senators do not win elections but they are bought. Then after they are bought, the lobbyists run and own the politicians. The lobbyists pull the strings of their puppets that we call elected officials. (Yes, exactly. But Mr. Brillhart, tell us why this happens?)

The propaganda machine is alive and working well for our so-called elected officials. They tell the same lies over and over and then the lies become the new truth. But for millions of Americans, they are still lies. (Again, exactly right. So once again, sir, why?)

Then we have many who say we need smaller government. (Actually, though some do say smaller government, the real issue is returning government to its constitutional limits. A smaller, still tyrannical government is no virtue.) 

No one seems to say we need a government that works for all the people in America. (Well, what does the author mean by "works?" Does he mean this from the perspective of a constitutionalist, or a quasi-socialist? Their remedies are quite different.) 

When we vote for those who say we need a smaller government what do they do? Give big tax breaks to corporations, give tax breaks to the super rich and create more taxes for the middle class. (Um, no. Because the Big Government Leftists are the ones in power, there is no way small government advocates have had any power at all to do what the author suggests they are doing.)

We know the system is rigged. But has rigor mortis set in? “Democracy” needs to be resuscitated. But the super rich, big corporations, and lobbyists want to destroy “democracy.” (Which means he wants even more of what is causing the problems. Wealth redistribution, high corporate taxes, more campaign money restrictions. It's astonishing that the author so ably illustrates the problems with Big Government, then calls for even more! The answer is to take power away from the perpetrators, not give them more.

With a constitutionally restricted government, legislators would have no power to pay off corporate cronies or do favors for special interests. They would have no power to redistribute wealth to buy votes. There would be no lobbyists, because there would be nothing to lobby. No discretionary spending powers. No fat government contracts. No deciding who has too much or too little.

Freedom is definitionally freedom from the oppression of government and its cronies.)

LaVon D. Brillhart Dillon

Chick-Fil-A is against equal rights - FB conversation

FB friend R.W. posted this:

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover there are other views." -William F Buckley



So true

R.W.: ‎"The frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance, freedom and open-mindedness. Question: Isn't the real truth that they are intolerant of religion? They refuse to tolerate it's importance in our lives." -Ronald Reagan.

B.R.: Yes, amazing quotes and quite accurate, but this controversy isn't just about belief or opinion, it's also about drowning the political system with millions of dollars, to continue oppressing American citizens we claim to think are our equals. To ignore that vital element on either an intellectual or emotional level, is to be willfully ignorant and woefully out of touch with the next generation of Americans.

R.W.: It just about belief and opinion.

R.W.: Should we make political contributions illegal ? Shall we just do away with the first amendment? Maybe only liberal companies should be allowed to contribute since only they know what's best for everyone. They are, after all, much mote enlightened than the rest of us. Companies like Ben and jerrys should be run out of all the red states since they don't share the same standards as the local community.

Me: It ain't about equality.

S.H.: As I posted on another friend's comment thread: "Everyone has the right to spend their money as they choose. The owner of Chick-fil-A has the right to give his money to organizations that oppose changing the traditional definition of marriage. Gays (and others) have the right to not eat in his restaurants if they don't like it. Others have the right to patronize his restaurants if they do like it. (And, judging from the reported success of "Support Chick-fil-A Day," it sounds like there's a lot of the latter.) None of those behaviors equate to "hate" in my opinion. They are all the choices of free people in a free market society. I'm getting really tired of hearing people brand as "hate" any behavior or expression of political opinion they don't happen to agree with.

"I *do* have a problem when government officials decide they're going to deliberately try to damage a business because of its owner's personal moral views, or the political causes he chooses to support."

As R.W. points out, liberals would be screaming from the housetops if conservative government officials were trying to penalize Ben and Jerry's because of their support of liberal causes, or Amazon.com because Jeff Bezos announced he was giving $2.5 million to *support* Washington's gay marriage law.

R.W.: Who says the NEXT generation has all the answers? Why is it if we disagree with our children WE are the ones who are ignorant ? Why don't you go ask a child of the sixties, who is now driving a BMW and ask them how their idyllic vision turned out for them.

R.W.: Let us March on Amazon! We can't tolerate his religious bigotry against people whoes traditions go back thousands of years. If the Republicans win the governorship, we can have him exercise his constitutional right to run them out of town. (a right Ben believes he has) Jeff Bezos has no right to drown the political system with Millions of dollars. (a right B.R.does Not believe a person has)

B.R.: Fair points, all. But who cares about liberal vs conservative? I don't. If we're really talking about people's rights, let's focus on the basic human rights that are being denied. The victims in this situation are not Chick-Fil-A or the people of Boston or anyone who feels punished by the tide turning on their ability to have a say in others' love lives. RELIGION IS NOT UNDER ATTACK. Millions of people can't love the way you can. How would you feel?

Me: it ain't about rights.

B.R.: What's it about, Rich?

Me: There is no right to marriage. It's a privilege granted by law, and the law defines those who qualify.

S.H.: B.R., I have to take issue with the statement "Millions of people can't love the way you can." They absolutely can. I do not care what people do in their bedrooms, or with whom. We're talking about the definition of marriage. If you actually research Washington's domestic partner law, for example, you'll find that it really is, as the nickname implies, "everything but marriage." And that's fine with me. I believe domestic partners *should* be able to share medical information, have inheritance rights, participate in survivors' benefits and retirement plans, etc.

But "everything but marriage" is not enough for the gay community. They are saying to the rest of society, in effect, "We insist that you agree with us that our relationships are equivalent to yours in every way and of equal value to society. And if you refuse to agree with us, you're a hater, and we will force you to concede the point through the court system, or any other means available to us."

But the relationships are *not* equivalent, in two very obvious ways: (1) they cannot produce society's next generation, and (2) they cannot provide both male and female role models to that next generation. We may not agree on the importance of those differences, but it cannot be denied that they exist. And, given that they exist, I believe it's appropriate for society as a whole - which has an obvious vested interest in the well-being of its next generation - to decide how important they are. A majority of Americans still believe that they are important enough that the traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman should be granted special recognition.

R.W.: B.R., hey I got to help you out. You will not win any arguments talking in these sweeping Armageddon type terms. You say thinks like "Millions of people can't love the way you can" knowing full well that no one can regulate love. You bemoan someone "drowning the political system with millions of dollars, to continue oppressing American citizens" when you know that YOUR side ALSO gives millions. You say that anyone who does not agree with is "willfully ignorant and woefully out of touch with the next generation of Americans" as if your opinion is the ONLY opinion, and even this arrogant statement that the "NEXT GENREATION OF AMERICANS" all must think like YOU do. Well maybe most of the theatre set in Seattle does, maybe the local college students do, but that is a far cry from including the entire next generation. I don't think I can jelp you with this other than to point it out. But I can help you with statements that you have made concerning peoples "RIGHTS" in which you have misspoke several times. (Not just in this thread but in others on the same topic.) Here is a link that will teach you free of charge about the constitution. It took place live last year but all the lessons are archived. When you get done with the Constitution 101, there is another more in depth course which is also free of charge:

Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the U.S. Constitution - Hillsdale College www.hillsdale.edu

B.R.: Your gifts are appreciated, but you must agree on one thing: stop viewing me as just a liberal or a lefty or a Dem or an Obama voter, and I'll stop viewing you as strictly conservative, republican, right wing, and a Mitt Romney voter. I'm tired of important debates coming down to accusations of the general specter of the other side. I want compromise between the two halves of America above all else. Though our words get heated and sloppy, I want us to try this out. You've changed my mind about a few things thus far, but I get the strong feeling you haven't reevaluated your ideas regardless of what I say. First question: is there anything Obama has done that you like or think is good?

R.W.: Actually I have answered that before. Obama, made the right call and invaded a foreign land and killed Osama. Yes it is the call I think any president would have made but still he made it. I heard that not everyone in his administration backed that call and I'm glad he didn't listen to them. He kept many of GW's plans in place concerining the protection of this country. I'm not always please HOW he is doing things, like broadcasting our withdrawl date from Iraq and Afghanistan but still. But economincally he has done nothing I can think of that would warrant praise. In fact, the very same things he ran on, and said about GW, he has done EXACTLY the same thing. I get tired of him SAYING one thing and doing another, but let me get back to what he has done that I like. I can't think of much. Maybe you can suggest some things and I can tell you if I agree. Healthcare, no. Stimulous, no. Making enemies of American business's like Wall street, big oil, banks, Pharmeceuticals, Hospitals, Insurance companies, etc. He pits blacks against whites, Rich against poor. Man against Woman. He has divided this nation like no other. But I'm still trying to think what I like. Help me out. What do you think I SHOULD like?

B.R.: I'll continue the Obama chat soon, on the post I made on your wall. I read something just now about the Chick-Fil-A controversy that represents the way I feel about it, and is more eloquent and passionate than my attempts. It's also very fair and well-thought out. It also seeks to compromise, not pit anyone against anyone else. I really hope you and all the other people on this thread will read it:

The Chick Fellatio: stuck in the craw www.owldolatrous.com

Me: R.W., dammit, COMPLIMENT Obama to prove that you're fair!

Me: B.R., your link is the worst kind of misrepresentation, stereotypes, and strawmen, all dressed up in "let's all be reasonable" garb. Rather than analyze it on FB, I'll copy it to my blog and supply a link later.

R.W.: The title alone is offensive

Me: I didn't take a lot of time, but here it is:

Mountain Man Trails: The Chick Fellatio: stuck in the craw

B.R.: Thanks Rich, I genuinely accept and appreciate the falsities that you've pointed out, and I'll bring them into my collective understanding of this issue. It saddens me that neither of you have seemed to grasp or welcome ANY of this man's perspective into your heart, however - or if you have, you may be keeping it to yourself for some unknown reason. I guess I'm just sick of the desire to win arguments being more important than the desire to enlarge one's personal world. Nevertheless, be assured that your words have changed me, and helped me create a more accurate and relevant case for what I believe.

B.R.: And I'm not asking R.W. to compliment Obama to prove that he's fair. I'm asking him to search for things he likes about the side he hates, because if we cannot find anything to like in our opposition, that's a travesty unworthy of our founding fathers. Thankfully, he does like at least a few things.

Me: No haters here, sorry. What we are talking about is opposing concepts. Ideas, not personalities. There is no obligation for anyone to point out nice things about ideas that are disagreed with. No kumbaya is required. This is nothing other than a simple debate. People have opinions, and debate them.

I systematically evaluated this man's perspective, and found it to be flawed at its most basic level. He initially made some good points, but then essentially backtracked on them later on. So, I respectfully responded to those things. In my opinion, he's wrong. Period. No hate, no sadness, no malice. His IDEAS are flawed. That's it.

Again, this is a debate about ideas. Bad ideas do not expand perspective. Bad ideas need to be rejected.

B.R.: Can you tell me which points he made that you thought were good? I prefer conversation to debate, and conversation requires both insistence and concession.

Me: With the unfortunate exception of a couple of weeks ago, B.R., I generally find that you are willing to debate ideas. Most people who lean Left that I have conversed with have a veneer of tolerance and civility that quickly disappears once someone disagrees with them. That's why I tend to persist in engaging you.

Me: ‎"My hope here is to find common ground with those who have disagreed with me on the issue..." I agree, but it turns out to be only so much noise.

B.R.: Here's the thing: a debate has an outcome. There is a winner or loser to a debate, or to the contest that the debate is part of. That's why there's no concessions or compromise in a debate. We don't have an outcome on Facebook, we simply talk, and post, and talk, and post. This is a better forum for conversation than it is for debate. And for us to continue talking about this, it'd be great to know that a) you guys want to know where I stand just like I want to know where you stand, and b) my words are actually affecting you, rather than just slamming against a wall and falling into nothing. Does that makes sense?

Me: It's not my job to affirm you, Ben. For all you know, it might indeed fall on deaf ears. Or maybe it revolutionized me. Doesn't matter.

I am not referring to a debate as in an official event that is judged, with an outcome pronounced. The debate I refer to is the exchange of ideas where concepts are developed or rejected.

Lastly, you are not as guilty of this, but frequently what is presented to me is simply regurgitated nonsense that someone read somewhere. For example, the article you linked to where the author writes, "Jesus had almost nothing to say about sexual behavior of any kind." I see this kind of assertion made frequently. I would call things like this "liberal's urban legends," because they so frequently resurface.

But it is the Left that accuses people like me of not thinking. It's irritating, and that's why I oppose it wherever I find it.

B.R.: Well, I'm not accusing you of not thinking; I'm accusing you of not changing.

Me: So if I think but then do not change, is it possible that my thought process led me to the conclusion that I should not change?

B.R.: For that to happen 100% of the time would build a pretty good case for rigidity of opinion. Why should we debate if neither of us is going to evolve? I don't mean you need to become liberal or I become conservative. But it's like World War I out here - there's liberals on one edge, and conservatives the other, and a giant chasm of no-man's-land between, where neither party wants to concede or compromise or admit that the other one has changed their point of view. Do you like how polarized our nation is? Does that make you happy, or do you wish it was different?

R.W.: In order to affect us Ben, you have to use less sweeping language. (for me anyway.) Things like "because if we cannot find anything to like in our opposition, that's a travesty unworthy of our founding fathers." That statement can only come from someone who doesn't know that much about our founding fathers who often bitterly opposed each other. To think, if I don't say anything nice about someone, I am disrespecting the very men who founded this nation seems to me absurd.

B.R.: I don't need personal affirmation that my opinion is correct or better than anything. But if I'm going to keep talking to you guys, I'd like to know if and when I'm actually affecting your point of view, even if it's rare. Deal?

R.W.: sure.

Me: Polarization is a good thing. Uniformity would indicate lack of independent thought.

Me: When I was younger I was extremely Left. I have changed considerably, to conservative for a number of years, and now I'm leaning libertarian these days. So I'm moving farther to personal liberty, and farther from big government control.

So, if you're trying to suggest that a person who is persuaded of a particular position is inflexible, you are barking up the wrong tree.