Posted on 03/11/2009 5:10:54 PM PDT by KTM rider
You’re confusing defending reality and rationality with defending Obama. That’s one of the big problems I see with the Obama Derangement Syndrome people.
Of course, a name and/or “label” like that would have never come up, from your fellow conservatives, unless these “types” had provided it by their very “thinking”... :-)
Well, I was sure it would fall off all by itself, from all the “spinning” you’ve been doing, with no help from me... LOL...
You were saying — “Sure, but the effort you’re putting into this Oklahoma law thing—essentially typing comments about it on FreeRepublic—is approximately one thousandth the magnitude of the effort you put into defending Obama on this thread.”
—
Well, the Oklahoma legislature is not composed of Obama Derangement Syndrome people, so it’s very pleasant working with them and seeing things progress in a straightforward and logical manner.
However, when one encounters derangement, it does take more effort to try and make sense out of it, and many times you can never correct a deranged person, so it ends up with more effort.
A good boy takes a lot less effort to help along than a bad boy... (and likewise for the deranged...) ... :-)
You know, it’s very fitting that leftist icon Saul Alinsky chose to dedicate his book, Rules for Radicals, to Satan—that most sinister of all liars. Leftist ideology is itself nothing but a lie.
Most of today’s liberal rhetoric is nothing but a contrivance of language manipulated in such a way to make falsehood appear as truth. Every social or political proposal by the left turns in fact cultivates the exact opposite of its initial claim. For the individual leftist, the temporary refuge from this hypocrisy is in their sense, accurate though usually unconscious, that the ultimate agenda of leftism is to soothe and nourish individual pride.
But once we are faced with the knowledge that leftist ideology is itself the ideology of lies, where does that leave the leftists on an objective level? With an identity which is defined by intrinsic self-contradiction, how is identity even possible?
Is this the first chapter of your upcoming book? :-)
It sounds interesting...
Read it again.
It sounds like a good opening chapter to a book to me. I think you should finish the book and publish it...
But you alone are my target audience.
You’re not going to make very much money on that book, then... LOL...
It’s only a post, and I’m giving it to you free of charge.
Spinning? Did you site spinning? HAH! You should never use that term at FR given the astonishing spin you went through over your faux bible lesson on the Good Samaritan. But then you leftist posing as conservatives never seem to learn that you will get caught in your deceits.
Well, so be it, but I think you’re wasting a fantastic beginning to a book...
Well, Mr. non-rationality, himself has shown up... LOL...
That means you like both the style and the content.
What about the content do you like?
It sounds like a good beginning. You just have to “flesh it in” with specifics and examples to match up with the language.
You “make a case”, you give examples, you correlate the examples to the specifics of the “language” you just gave, earlier and then see how it matches up.
Just like any good book...
You’re highly skeptical, though more than a little curious, as to how I could possibly back up my claim.
You said — “You’re highly skeptical, though more than a little curious, as to how I could possibly back up my claim.”
LOL..., I don’t have to be curious about the general ideas regarding liberals as others have done a good enough job as it is...
Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0895261901
So, I’m not skeptical that such things can be proven (as given in the example of the book above). It may be quite another story about a “particular individual” even having the skills and/or knowledge and/or abilities to do as good a job as the above book, though.
And in that regard, I guess I would have to see the rest of your book, to see if you would be as good as Bernard Goldberg...
Curiosity is not a practical imposition. It comes from within.
But what you’re really doing is refusing to take a stand, which further reveals your liberal mindset. (There I go again, teaching you how to be more effective as a liberal troll on a conservative website.)
Oh, on the contrary, I agree with what the book —
Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0895261901
There’s no doubt about it.
—
Furthermore, I also agree with the view of many other conservative posters and the articles that have been published by the national conservative media (in articles and also in blogs, too) — about the “Obama Derangement Syndrome”. This is very evident.
They are sidelined and sidetracked, off into a corner, effecting hardly anything, while the majority of the conservatives are doing things like lobbying their state legislatures to make sure that Obama must produce his documentation, by passing state laws to that effect.
So, no..., I do take a stand on these things... for sure...
You misunderstood.
I meant you weren’t taking a stand on whether or not you were curious about my claim in post # 124.
Instead, you state “I don’t have to be curious.” This is a leftist tactic.
Rather than make a declarative comment on any given issue—any issue whatsoever—the leftist makes a general and neutral comment about it, thus giving the appearance of having taken a stand when they in fact have remained neutral.
Maybe you will think about this, and light will be cast upon the notion that liberal thought is duplicitous. Maybe it will appear less favorable to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.