Posted on 04/01/2013 12:24:42 AM PDT by plsjr
Comedian Evan Sayet described his progression from a “brain-dead liberal” to a “9/13 Republican” in a forthcoming interview with The Daily Caller’s Ginni Thomas.
“There is only one religion now [for the left],” he said. “The religion is that anything that is considered good, right or has become successful has some how been the beneficiary of some sort of injustice.”
Sayet went on to pointedly criticize liberals’ “morally and intellectually retarded” philosophy.
“The liberal believes if we just regurgitate the apple, give up all knowledge of right and wrong, we can return to paradise”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Okay.
There is no depravity you cannot trust the left to commit.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2980615/posts?page=175#175
My sentiment exactly. I would codify that in the constitution if I could, with the proper ratification of course.
I would say it’s not just a mental disease, but a spiritual one as well. Read the 10 Commmandments and compare it to the left’s behavior. I realize we all fall short, however, they celebrate their “falling short” and want others to follow them as well. If you don’t, they won’t hesitate to ruin you. They hate freedom because it’s a gift from God. They want to run the show.
“There is only one religion now [for the left],” he said. “The religion is that anything that is considered good, right or has become successful has some how been the beneficiary of some sort of injustice.”
Sounds satanic to me.
Evan Sayet bump
Geez. The book is still available, at $3000 to $6000 with the sanpaper cover.
Will have to be boxed or brodart-covered, if you’re a collector :).
You’re right about liberals not thinking too deeply. Most don’t. They never get past how they feel and what they wish things could be like. Those that do rapidly see how the liberal world view falls apart when it comes crashing into reality. Then the liberal does one of three things. One, they get angry and scared, stick their head in the sand, deny the reality, and blame us (non liberals). Two, they accept the reality and change their world view - becoming something other than a liberal (a great awakening). Three, they decide that power and control are more important than honesty, and use their new-found knowledge to manipulate other liberals. (the fascist option)
When I went to the link, all I got was audio. The video and accompanying article are at:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/31/evan-sayet-from-liberal-to-913-republican-video/
They can’t see anything, one of my favorite illustrations is the old saw that conservatives are “inconsistent” if they simultaneously favor the death penalty for murder but condemn abortion. The liberals are the reverse, they condemn the death penalty for murder but approve of abortion.
If a woman is ugly her image in the mirror is ugly, if she is beautiful her image in the mirror is beautiful, if the conservative position is “inconsistent” then the liberal position which is the mirror image is “inconsistent” so calling the conservatives inconsistent merely illustrates the absurdity of the left.
In reality the conservative position is consistent AS IS THE LIBERAL POSITION but the conservative is consistently sane while the liberal is consistently insane.
When you consider the basis of most of their political opinions rely on their ability to redefine things such as “up” into “down”, it’s not surprising any debate of substance with them resembles more of a psychotic episode rather than a discussion.
Pretty much all of Liberal psychology can be seen in the mind of an average 4-to-6 year-old. The inability to see consequences, over-generalization, self-absorbtion. A 6-year-old asks, “Why doesn’t everyone have a house to live in?” A Liberal tries to enact law to make this reality.
It is a natural state of mind, but one that you are supposed to grow out of. The description, “Retarded”, is completely appropriate.
“Unfortunately, the Constitution guarantees a vote to all citizens,”
Could you kindly point that out for me please. I don’t recall reading that....ever.
I experience them as rebellious, hateful adolescents who are against things just because the “grown ups”, which is to say traditions are for them. For example, marriage is a meaningless piece of paper which they flaunt as ignorant and old fashioned when they want to define”living together” as the new cool norm, but that very same institution is the ultimate important thing for gays. The theme seems to be this: where society sanctions something, oppose it, simply for the sake of being contrary to the adults. They are like two year olds and teens.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States
Good luck getting the Supremes to deny anybody the vote, Keep in mind that, if anybody can be denied the right to vote, that anybody can be you.
“You’re right about liberals not thinking too deeply. Most don’t. They never get past how they feel and what they wish things could be like.”
I believe Thomas Sowell stated that liberals replace what works with what “sounds” good.
I just bought Sayet’s new book “Kindergarden of Eden.”
It’s the best thing I’ve read in 10 years and explains how liberals “think.”
You can get the book or download the eBook.
We can’t find the solution without clearly identifying the root cause of the problem. Having looked at the problem long and hard, my opinion is that the unified tendentiousness of journalism is that root cause. Journalism is protected, and rightly so, under the First Amendment - but nothing in 1A indicates that journalism is objective - or that it should be unified. A constitutional provision isolating the press from government interference is certainly no way to force journalism to be objective.The Constitution doesn’t contemplate forcing journalism to be objective, far from it - it only protects the right of anyone to express their own opinion to anyone who wants to listen to it. Leaving the judgement of “objectivity” or wisdom to the listener/reader who we wish were prudent enough to recognize that anyone who claims to be objective, or does so implicitly by criticizing others for not being objective, is the least objective of all.But there is a caveat. Journalism may be independent of the government or any political party, but nothing requires a political party - or a government constituted by a political party - to be independent of journalism. What if journalism has interests distinct from, even contrary to, that of the people as a whole?
Adam Smith pointed out in Wealth of Nations that
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. Book I, Ch 10So in that sense Adam Smith predicted that if the newspaper printers got to be in too close a communication - say, for example, by forming an organization to share reports over the telegraph - that newspapers would become one associated press, and the interests of journalism would be put forth as "the interests of the people." And that is what we observe in reality. They call it “liberalism” or “progressivism, or moderation or centrism or motherhood and apple pie - but socialism is simply the interest not of the people but of journalism unified by the Associated Press (and by any and all other wire services you care to name).Why is that so? Journalists are about talk, not doing things. They are the “critics” of “the man in the arena” - they never run risks to get things done, but they are sure, they want you to be sure, that they are smarter than those who do - and would do better than what is actually done if they were in charge of everything. The junior senator from Massachusetts will tell you that “you didn’t build that.” You and I know that it wouldn’t have been built if nobody had had the vision and the commitment to build and operate “that,” but it flatters everyone else to deny reality. And so we see the associated press vigorously promoting the politics of the money tree fantasy at the expense of anyone who has ever deferred spending in order to save and invest.
You also see “white man him bad” politics promoted the same way - whoever has the effrontery to even think of succeeding without being in bed with politicians associated with the associated press is given the “Joe the Plumber” treatment. Or the “Nifong” treatment just for being a convenient target for a Democrat politician’s ambition.
Well, so much for preaching to the choir - what can be done about it? The Associated Press should be sued into oblivion. Now that transmission bandwidth cost is de minimus, its mission - the transmission of significant news across the continent while conserving bandwidth - is obsolete. The sins of “the MSM” are manifold, and the AP and its membership should be called to account in a class-action, RICO civil suit for triple damages. Sue the whole bunch at once, to prevent them from passing responsibility for coining and propagating libelous falsehoods. And include the FCC while you are at it, for demanding “objective journalism” as a condition of broadcast licensing, thereby putting the imprimatur of the government on fraudulent claims of objectivity.
But as we saw in the Bush years, no one in the GOP will stand up to MSM slander. Kerry threatened to sue any station airing swift boat ads, and a movie documenting facts about it. What did Bush do when CBS actually aired fake documents suggesting he was AWOL in the National Guard, hoping to effect an election? Nothing. And so the MSM thrives in a niche of appeasement to one side only.
That’s why I suggest a civil action, not depending on a Karl Rove to give a President Bush a spine and get him to use the Justice Dept. And I don’t suggest that the Republican Party do it, either - they never will. The plaintiff needs to be the class of people who wish the Republicans were their defenders because we know that the Democrats and the journalists with whom the Democrats exist in symbiosis, are systematically abusing us.So, say I, we go to court alleging that:
- ”journalism” functions as a single entity, because of the unifying effect of the continuous contact among journalism institutions which is the purpose of the AP. Those institutions, and the reporters and editors who work for them, conspire against the public precisely as Adam Smith could have predicted.
- This conspiracy against the public manifests itself in the promotion of propaganda to the effect that journalists can, indeed must, be trusted implicitly as the “first draft of history," and
- This conspiracy against the public manifests itself in the promotion of propaganda to the effect that they, and “liberals” who go along and get along with them, are the only ones who can be trusted at all. This manifests itself in the systematic slander of people we count on to get things like production and distribution of goods and services done, and indeed of anyone who does not go along to get along with that conspiracy - or who simply are convenient targets to pick on. Examples, being legion, include but are far from limited to the AGW hoax, and other alarmism including the Alar “poisoned apple” scare, just about every artificial sweetener scare, overhyped oil spill scares, the fraudulent "Texas Air National Guard memos,” the smear of the SBVT, the “government outting of Valerie Plame” hoax, the promotion of the Nifonging of the Duke Lacrosse team, the smearing of Joe the Plumber, witch hunting through Sarah Palin’s emails, etc, etc. Including everything in Ann Coulter’s Slander and a great deal of Thomas Sowell’s writing.
- The AP and all other wire services have the same unifying effect on journalism, and what little competition they have among themselves does not mitigate the fact that ideological competition among them is essentially completely suppressed. The members of those services individually cooperate through the mechanism of the wire services, and each, tacitly or openly, claim that all are objective.
- The FCC promotes broadcast journalism, placing its imprimatur on the so-called objectivity of that journalism conspiracy, and assisting journalism’s promotion of paranoia among the public by the implication that the public should be paying attention to journalism’s reports every waking hour. And accepting at face value claims that journalism is objective, when it is merely unified in promoting its own interest at the expense of the public - and in particular the plaintiffs’ - good.
- Plaintiffs demand restitution for damages in the amount of the cost of enough advertising to counterbalance the dolorous impact of the aforementioned fraud on reputations, great and small, over the history back to any applicable Statute of Limitations. And plaintiffs demand triple damages under RICO because of the extent, duration, and damage to the public and to the reputation of the Republic caused by this vast conspiracy. In the era of satellite, microwave, and laser/fiber optic communication, the justification of the wire services’ “association” of nominally independent presses - the conservation of communications bandwidth - is an anachronistic issue. And the claim of objectivity, being functionally equivalent to a claim of wisdom, is and always was sophistry and must be expunged from all communication which has the imprimatur of the government. Open advocacy is legitimate, but fraudulent self-promotion must be something which is disinfected with maximum daylight. The government must not in any active or passive way suggest or insinuate otherwise.
Journalism and Objectivity
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.