In this age, in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions. -Abraham Lincoln

I have often wondered if both sides of the political spectrum really ever bother with winning voter's support with facts. I mean, do they? Do they really encourage critical thinking about issues or do they not care how they garner support as long as they have the support that translates into votes which equals victory.

They win and they care not how.

Is this the case? Is this how they do it? Not only do I wonder about politicians but special interests groups like abortionist and gay activists.

Do politicians, pro-abortionist, and pro-gays really have all the facts on their side or do they simply not care as long as they have public sentiment swaying the people to their point of view. You would think that the way they present their case that the jury came in long ago and absolutely no debate will be tolerated when someone dares to stand up and be counted by asking the impudent question:

"Just who says this is so…?"

"Just who says your facts are correct…?"

"Just who says I can't ask for proof…?"

The pro-gays resort to immediate and vitriolic Ad Hominem attacks as soon as you voice a doubt about their party line-You're a homophobe.

Critical Thinker: "How do you know you were born gay?"

Gay Activist: "Only someone who is a religious, homophobic, Bible-thumping madman could ask such a question.

This, by the way, is a fallacy in critical thinking: A Beg the Question Argument.

This person assumes the very point we are debating. This person assumes there is such a wealth of evidence to support his position that "all gays are born that way" only a "religious fanatic" could possibly reject the "indisputable evidence".

A person who uses this Question-Begging Argument (circular reasoning) typically believes ALL THE EVIDENCE WITHOUT EXCEPTION is on his or her side. This person believes only a fool with an agenda could possibly reject the "evidence" he or she is using to support the position in the debate.

This person, by using this fallacy, will try to position you to argue against the mountain of "speculative statistics" which he uses to construct a Straw Man. He did not make The Straw Man from the statistical results of "the test of experimentation" but from the "improper use of statistics".

If you allow this Straw Man maker to define the boundaries of the argument in this way then you have lost before you begin the debate.

Indeed, he who "molds public opinion or sentiment" controls the masses. It does not matter how it is done or if truth is even bother with. If the masses support him then he has won whether he propagates the truth or a lie.

The masses do not seem to care.

Do you care?