1 The actual citation, and I don't recall the source, is that violence is the last refuge of those who are insufficiently armed with facts and therefor cannot win an argument.

You got it right, however, in that today's left is so woefully unarmed with facts that violence is by no means their last refuge, but is often their first response to anyone who does not agree with them.

2 Thanks Bill. I was paraphrasing, of course, but it helps to have the actual quote. 

Yeah; they sure are quick to fight. In a battle of wits they run away like Arthur's gang in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

3 I believe part of the Left's fury is due to the fact that they can't accept that anybody would have the temerity to disagree with their "program" for remaking this country. They firmly believe they are destined to be our lords and masters and we are just supposed to shut up and take it. When we don't, they can't handle it. Keep in mind that the main reason they hate Trump so much is that he represents a huge (yuge?) monkey wrench dumped in the middle of their plans -- probably more so than any other Republican who might have beaten Queen Hillary, because Trump will not stand for their shenanigans, and calls them out every time he needs to. Unlike, say, G.W. Bush.

Imagine, if you can stand to, what would have happened if Mittens had beaten Hussein in '12. My guess is, nothing.

4 Very true, Dana.  One does not argue with gods, and, as my prior post illustrates, that is what they think they are.

They believed that had won it all; Hillary would cement in Obama's victories and expand on them, and they would set the machine in motion to guarantee eternal electoral success (unrestrained immigration, voting by i-phone, etc.) It didn''t work and they can't handle it.

5 I think your point is good Dana, and bears on a theory I've long held on anger's role in argument. I believe that people who have a solid hold on their beliefs, whose beliefs are based on solid reflection, do not become angry when challenged.

It's not just violence which is the last refuge of the uninformed, it's anger, because the person is backed into a corner, trying to defend that which he/she/it/zit cannot defend. (The compound pronoun illustrates my point.)

Today's youth are failing. The reasons for that are a bit complex and do not entirely reflect discredit on them, but they do not want to look at themselves either for fault or for solution. They have not been taught to do that. They have been raised by a generation of helicopter parentage.

So they want government to "take care of them," something they have not been taught to do for themselves, and they see socialism as a form of government that will do that. They are not willing to speak of it those terms, of course, nor are they willing to be forced to see the historical unviability ot their theory.


So when confronted with the manner in which their theory is doubly illogical and with no defense, they become angry and the grits hit the fan.

6 I should have added, Dana, that one of the most common defenses of those who feel like losers is to act like they are lords of the universe. The assumption of that role is as much inward as outward, but the origin, the feeling of being a loser, remains.

7 Outstanding points Bill!  I'll start using zit as a gender pronoun henceforth!

8 I'm with you guys all the way. I wonder if it has to do with the kids who are still living in Mom and Dad's basement at age 28 or older and (presumably) playing video games all day, where they really are "gods." Eventually the video reality takes over from life.

"Grits hit the fan," eh? I like that, Bill. A local musician I used to work with liked to use expressions such as "that's the Ethiopian in the fuel supply" and "when the fertilizer hits the impeller."