Gay Patriot Header Image

Sarah Palin’s Gynecologist* Suggests the Left Needs to Hide Its Snobbery Better

Andrew Sullivan thinks that the left should try to be less arrogant and condescending. Good luck with that.

“There was a giant cloud of smug above Rachel Maddow when she was doing that. Liberals have to be careful not to sound so fucking condescending and smug… and start actually engaging the other side and persuading people.”

That cloud of smug is larger and thicker than the smog over Beijing on a bad day. I’d settle for the left being less deranged and violent; it’s not in their nature to be less arrogant and condescending. The social-democrat left is identity politics, and inherent in their identity politics is the belief that they are smarter and better than everyone else. When Obama described non-progressives as bitterly clinging to guns and religion and Hillary referred to us as “deplorables,” these were not gaffes, this name-calling was calculated to appeal to the left’s sense of superiority.

Let’s face it, any attempt by the Democrat-Socialist Left to pretend they care about working class voters is going to come off more forced and phony than Hillary attempting a southern accent.

*ICYMI, Andrew Sullivan’s obsessive belief that Sarah Palin faked a pregnancy to cover her daughter’s out-of-wedlock teen pregnancy was the “Russians hacked the election” conspiracy theory of 2008; except since McCain lost, the media didn’t have a reason to obsess over it as much as he did.

BTW: Hillary’s #1 Twitter fanboy is still butthurt over the loss; which he blames on… try not to laugh, I dare you… biased media. This guy wanted to be Hillary’s bottom boy as bad as Sully wanted to have Obama’s caramel-colored babies.

Share

69 Comments »

  1. @49

    Well, I thought evident enough: Collectivism.

    A form of government of which being, Athen’s Democracy.

    Comment by Cyril — March 23, 2017 @ 11:29 am - March 23, 2017

  2. And it is best to read The Law end to end.

    But, okay, here are tidbits I like:

    The Doctrine of the Democrats, the Superman Idea, and the conclusion.

    Comment by Cyril — March 23, 2017 @ 11:34 am - March 23, 2017

  3. Hi Heliotrope,
    There was a time when your insults were mortifying to me, especially when you are this angry. I don’t enjoy that anger but I take comfort in realizing that this appears to be most of what you have to offer. You “partially vindicate” 🙂 the claim I have made that your argument cannot stand on its own. You know, I will let Senator McCain say it for me–to start: “It is bizarre, the things that are being said. There’s no substantiation for either what Chairman Nunes said nor is there substantiation for what Congressman Schiff said.” Its a big lot of nothing so far that there is evidence tying the Trump campaign to coordination with the Russians or Obama wiretapping.

    I wonder what “incidental collection” during a completely legal and unrelated investigation means? I don’t know yet. Because I am absolutely certain that you have no idea either. But don’t let that stop you or other right wing blogs.

    “Now here’s the scrummy rub. Larry Klayman shopped this to Trump and Trump tweeted a shot across the bow of the Good Ship Swamp Rat. The establishment pols hunkered down and decided to bugger all by running dodgy hearings lest they torch their own house of cards.” The irony that the “possibility” you raise here is totally ignorable according to your earlier “use” of “logic,” is not lost on me.

    Be well,
    Cas

    Comment by Cas — March 23, 2017 @ 2:14 pm - March 23, 2017

  4. Oh, but you stunningly misread me. I am not the least bit angry. You thoroughly disgust me. You lie, distort, skew, equivocate, contort, posture, adulterate, corrupt, pollute and pervert the concept of any sort of an honest exchange of points of view.

    You always end up at this same state of bastardization of any scintilla of continuity in your projectile vomiting.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 23, 2017 @ 5:26 pm - March 23, 2017

  5. Sounds like anger (and no content by the way…) to me Heliotrope.
    Take care
    Cas

    Comment by Cas — March 23, 2017 @ 6:02 pm - March 23, 2017

  6. Hi Cyril,
    The comments section here looks all kinds of screwy in my browser. The first comment I have is your comment at 50. the rest of the earlier comments are missing. Do you have the same look? Could you resend the link to the short video, which is no longer available to me, since the comments are now starting for me at 50? I can get to the longer video from there. The gentleman said some things that left me scratching my head so I wanted to check the context a bit more given the editing. Otherwise, I think I am good to go if you are on our discussion!
    Be well
    Cas

    Comment by Cas — March 23, 2017 @ 8:56 pm - March 23, 2017

  7. @Cas

    Okay,

    Positive vs. Negative Function of the Law

    Frederic Bastiat :

    https://youtu.be/g1glR0LRT-M

    Individualism vs. Collectivism

    G. Edward Griffin :

    https://youtu.be/zv71xEnpWjU

    Why Democracy Fails

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe :

    https://youtu.be/hUzkZaD1xDs

    In the case of Hoppe, make sure you have a good seat to grok it.

    Comment by Cyril — March 24, 2017 @ 1:42 am - March 24, 2017

  8. Hi Cyril,
    Thanks for the link again. I checked out the Bastiat as well. I don’t have access to your prior comment where you said “No” so, I am going to have to refer to what I think the spirit of what you said was. My apologies. Anyway …

    I am interested in your “No!” The claim from G.Edwards–Collectivism: “The principle that the individual can be (must be, if necessary) sacrificed to the needs of the greater good of the greater number.” GEG then next states that this is a terrible concept because there is “No such thing as a group.” A group is an abstract concept that stands in for the idea of many individuals. A “group” does not exist, and you cannot touch it. You can only touch individuals. And the problem that GEG says is that by making an abstraction concrete, we make a group have rights over individuals. And that is the start of the problem. GEG argues that it is really a matter of many individuals claiming some power over a smaller number of individuals. Thus a matter of mathematics, and mathematics is not a basis for a just system because we can get all kind of weird transitive outcomes with some additional resources accruing to the administrators.

    I hope I have not done violence to the basic premise underlying GEG’s initial claim that he feels sets up his argument. Do you agree? If you are OK with this rather rushed summary, I want to ask GEG the following: A “group” is an abstraction. You can’t put your hands around a “group.” I can accept that. Does it not follow that one cannot put one’s arms around an “individual”? Why is the concept of an “individual” any less abstract than that of a “group”? I can put my arms around an actual individual concrete person (John, who lives down the road), or, if my arms are big enough, around a group of actual concrete persons (John, Jill, and Evan). Additionally a forest is not a collection of trees. A tree farm fulfills that definition. What makes a forest a forest is the fact that it definitely has trees, but also, relationships. Between trees and between the other things that make up the forest. By extension, when I hear the term, “We The People” this already presupposes (for me) that there is far more here then a “group of individuals” (an abstract concept for sure), but also (actual? concrete?) individuals who are bound together by a shared sense of identity, experience, values, and purpose. He speaks of “We The People” without making clear whether this is an abstract or concrete concept for him (after all, I can’t put my arms around “the people,” though, ironically, I can put my arms around a group of people” at least in common parlance).

    What do you think? Is “We the People” an abstract or concrete concept? And why do you think that?

    I apologize for going slowly, but I want to be respectful of the sources you offered for conversation. I hope that is OK.

    I will aim to get into the Bastiat piece next time. As for Hoppe, I am at a bit of a loss as to the argument that he makes concerning the better outcomes that he ascribes to an active and in control monarchy. The claim at the end that he is viewing things as an economist seems rather strange. The king maximizes the value of his property… In order for it to work, it appears he would have to believe that the resources in the country are the property of (or are actively to be oriented by) the king. That includes labour resources, i.e., people! One would have to ask why an authoritarian or totalitarian government (such as North Korea) would fit this description? His claim seems odd, especially for the Mises Institute! I have a number of queries concerning the piece, but I would be especially interested in understanding why you wanted me to listen to it.

    Take care
    Cas

    Comment by Cas — March 24, 2017 @ 6:43 pm - March 24, 2017

  9. @Cas

    Sorry, I have neither the time, energy, or interest in continuing a discussion which will not change my stance against Collectivism, up to, and including, my death bed — when the hour has struck.

    I do know the adage that “only imbeciles cannot change their mind”, but I do know also that, at heart, I am an objectivist — a consequence among others, is that I have long ago accepted the idea that it is useful, and in fact, salvatory, to recognize Right vs Wrong, True vs Untrue, Facts vs Nonfacts, Ideas vs Acts, etc.

    Hence, how it comes I am also a staunch opponent to moral relativism.

    So, I will only answer this, which is the crux of the matter:

    Why is the concept of an “individual” any less abstract than that of a “group”?

    If you know about someone, an individual, and they give you their phone number, and you communicate, and you agree on a meeting point, and you meet, say, for the first time ever — then you can experience things with senses beyond the abstraction that this individual only was before you met them for the first time.

    And that, is what no abstraction can make up for itself —

    IWO, “ex nihilo, nihil”.

    Sacrificing/destroying things (or lives) that belong to the tangible world only for the sake of “progress” in the abstract worlds (note the plural) will never allow you to go in reverse, and undo/recreate what (or who) had been sacrificed/destroyed.

    Humanely : disastrous, when that happens.

    And History’s record shows it quite clearly, like a record on repeat.

    Hence, how the individual, ultimately, must prevail, even if ideas are still welcome to flourish and be put to the test, with this contingence.

    ‘Hope this clarifies.

    Comment by Cyril — March 25, 2017 @ 3:03 am - March 25, 2017

  10. * IOW (in other words)

    Comment by Cyril — March 25, 2017 @ 3:05 am - March 25, 2017

  11. Why is the concept of an “individual” any less abstract than that of a “group”?

    In a public address, recorded in a March 5, 1931 newsreel, George Bernard Shaw gave expression to the Nazi doctrine of “life unworthy of life” (Lebensunwertes Leben):

    “You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?

    If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight, and since you won’t, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.

    In a 1910 lecture before the Eugenics Education Society, George Bernard Shaw said:

    We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living… A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.

    Statists always imagine themselves to be part of the elite group who will do unto others what is basically beneficial for the “group” (in power).

    The “concept” of the “group” is rife with abstraction. The “individual” by definition is one sole critter. The group is either a random aggregation of individual critters or it has some sort of affinity which presorts itself in some manner.

    So, is a baby in a crib (individual) less or more “abstract” than a group such as MS-13 members in your hood?

    Such word-salad bullish*t as “Why is the concept of an ‘individual’ any less abstract than that of a ‘group’?” is beyond any reasonable, conceptual query. It is an abstraction infused with abstraction and meaningless babble.

    But, on the likely chance that “the group” is some sort of “it takes a village to raise a child” sort of word salad abstraction then George Bernard Shaw is perfectly reasonable.

    It takes the Nazis to organize the village so that they can raise the child “properly.”

    A. James Gregor, Italian Fascism and Developmental Dictatorship, Princeton: NJ, Princeton University Press, 1979, pp. 258-264 details how, by 1925, Mussolini and his
    Fascist government had “embarked upon an elaborate program” that included food supplementary assistance, infant care, maternity assistance, general healthcare, wage supplements, paid vacations, unemployment benefits, illness insurance, occupational disease insurance, general family assistance, public housing, and old age and disability insurance.

    In 1939, New York city politician Grover Aloysius Whalen asked Mussolini about the meaning behind Italian Fascism in 1939, the reply was: “It is like your New Deal!”

    There is a perfect example of the “abstraction” which underlies both the “individual” and the “group.”

    I think, Cas, you better think it through again and come up with something worthy of discussion.

    So far you certainly do seem to be in league with the Fascists, the Nazis and the eugenists. Why don’t you just rob a bank? You might get away with it. Once. Why do you insist on living off of other people’s money simply because you are breathing?

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 25, 2017 @ 1:44 pm - March 25, 2017

  12. Hi Cyril,
    Thank you for advising me that you are not interested in the proposed conversation, and I appreciate it a great deal that you have told me that you are not open to having your mind changed. I am unsure why what we were talking about leads us to moral relativism, but OK. As for your example, I still don’t understand why I couldn’t extend the conversation you spoke of with an individual to a group, who I also got to know–perhaps a group who likes to walk around a lake every Wednesday; a group I accompany for the afternoon. Once I talk to someone, they stop being an abstract human being and become an actual human being.

    In any case, thank you for the links. I enjoyed exploring them and thinking about them.
    Cheers
    Cas

    Comment by Cas — March 26, 2017 @ 12:03 am - March 26, 2017

  13. Hi Heliotrope,
    I appreciate the fact that you have toned down your insulting rhetoric.

    “The “concept” of the “group” is rife with abstraction. The “individual” by definition is one sole critter. The group is either a random aggregation of individual critters or it has some sort of affinity which presorts itself in some manner.”

    So, why is it so hard to understand the following statement: “The group is made up of individuals.” I think it is obvious what that means, though there is no concrete detail. It is totally abstract. A lot of “ones” all together. Why they are together–who knows? We also can consider the following statements: “The group asked the man where the party was going to be held,” or, “The group gave the woman directions to the show.” The word “individual,” is as far as I can tell, a CHARACTERISTIC, just as the word “group” is. What leads to the idea of an “individual” having primacy in your thinking is the PARTICULARITY of a real person, not the fact that it is “a singular critter.”.

    As I read your example using GB Shaw (what a piece of work he is!), he starts off with a group (of “half a dozen people”) that he wishes to malign with characteristics that devalue it, and then moves to individuals–“Sir or Madam”–that he assumes are fit for execution. There is no sense of PARTICULARITY about these individuals even if they are a random aggregation of individuals or gathered under one sort of affinity, say “subhuman” or something else… They are place-holders as GB Shaw uses it. That is what allows him the comfort to make his case–far easier to do this than think of real, flesh and blood, historically conditioned people, who may share some recognizable characteristics, whatever they may be.

    Also, I admit that your last example left me confused. How does your use of Gregor support your claim? to whit: “There is a perfect example of the “abstraction” which underlies both the “individual” and the “group.”” I do not get it.

    Comment by Cas — March 26, 2017 @ 1:03 am - March 26, 2017

  14. The statist, like you, is the problem for groups of individuals.

    Statists aggregate individuals into groups for the purpose of managing and manipulating the individuals.

    All governments must do a certain amount of this grouping in order for law and order to be successful.

    Statists turn to the force of government constantly for systematizing individuals as a means to the ends imagined by the statists as what will best benefit the group of individuals.

    Shaw spoke the truth. Some individuals should run off a cliff because they don’t contribute to the benefit of society and they cause society to continue to spend good money on bad individuals. Socialists think like Nazis, Fascists and demigods, although they overwhelm themselves with the self delusion of altruism. They believe that beneficent Naziism is entirely possible if good people employ the power of force.

    Planned Parenthood is keen on killing the babies of the “wrong” kind of people. School principals even help get the damsels in distress to Planned Parenthood, unless the damsel is the daughter of a politically powerful person who might blow them up in the process.

    You dare not see Socialism in accord with these facts, because you are dedicated to Utopian socialism. That is why you can not even bring yourself to be moderately honest about the “rights” of people on the dole who want more entitlements awarded to them by forcing other people to give up more of their money.

    You have a Government is Jesus sort of “deep belief” system working for you which is “too abstract” for you to understand, let alone express.

    You are a denier, a liar, an obfuscater, a deign sayer, a dogmatist, and an unreasoning specimen of the Utopian statist. You have to be Godless and depend of situation ethics and be amoral in order to accommodate the capriciousness of your ideals.

    There is no basis of honest discussion with you because you never stand your ground and finish the point. Instead, you pick a little, talk a little and change the direction and shift into sophism high gear. In that comfortable self-directed road trip of the mind, you are happily overconfident, cocky, presumptuous and haughty.

    It is fine for you to be a statist with a belief in Utopian socialism. But you will someday have to come to the realization that we who loathe your “ideals” are not lacking in enlightenment. We are down for the struggle of making our way in order to keep as much of our free will intact as is possible and reasonable. You, on the other hand, will have to come to the realization that only your mob tendencies can overwhelm us, subdue us and imprison us in your garden of the unicorns.

    You are like the torturer in the Hanoi Hilton who tells us that if we will cooperate we will get use of a sliver of soap for 30 seconds or an extra dollop of maggots in our rice.

    You will not discuss anything but on your slippery slope terms and even then you contemptuously or imperiously toss in a new conditional or throw out a proviso so that:

    Alice: Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?
    The Cheshire Cat: That depends a good deal on where you want to get to.
    Alice: I don’t much care where.
    The Cheshire Cat: Then it doesn’t much matter which way you go.
    Alice: …So long as I get somewhere.
    The Cheshire Cat: Oh, you’re sure to do that, if only you walk long enough.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 26, 2017 @ 10:23 am - March 26, 2017

  15. Hi Heliotrope,

    “You are a denier, a liar, an obfuscater, a deign sayer, a dogmatist, and an unreasoning specimen of the Utopian statist.”
    and,
    “You will not discuss anything but on your slippery slope terms and even then you contemptuously or imperiously toss in a new conditional…”

    I want to point out that Cyril had already decided to leave the conversation. he did so respectfully and with grace. Only after he had left did you decide to enter in!

    Why bother? Why waste your time with one commentator who you think so little of and who no one is reading anyway, here in this backwater of a comment thread ? All I can think of is that you are bored; bored with the lack of diversity of opinion at GP; bored with the agreement and the adulation that commentators offer you here; bored with the lack of challenge.

    Fine, if that is all there is to it, I am glad I amuse you. I would only say that from my perspective, you are yourself adept at slippery slopes, evasion, and changing topics. Want an example: This issue of individual and group. You think I am conditioning and slippery sloping–spit it out. Because If … Then statements are not illegal last time I looked, especially if they throw light on perceived differences. And more to the point–I disagree with your claim, have given examples where I disagree, and have gotten bupkis from you in return but insult, as well as assertion, which you find self-evident, and I do not.

    I think this distinction is important, because it appears to lie at the heart of the distinction that “individualist–collectivist” thinkers use to build their arguments. If you are so confident of the righteousness of your cause and (more importantly) your argument, make the argument that shows the flaws in mine–as you understand them. Feel free to use Aristotle and The Categories, but then, let me use The Politics right back at you, unless you think Aristotle is in contradiction with himself …? Or maybe something a little more modern in the logic realm? What say you?

    Cheers
    Cas

    Comment by Cas — March 27, 2017 @ 7:07 pm - March 27, 2017

  16. I think this distinction is important, because it appears to lie at the heart of the distinction that “individualist–collectivist” thinkers use to build their arguments.

    I believe this meaningless word salad is a your greatest masterpiece of gobble-de-gook and you should have it translated into linear A and inscribed on your coat of arms.

    All mimsy toves and brillig borogoves go slithy momes and wrath outgrabe.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 27, 2017 @ 9:48 pm - March 27, 2017

  17. Hi Heliotrope,

    Keep evading my beamish boy!

    Sure, some food salad, frabjous day, he chortled in his joy.

    Beware that vorpal blade, oh double-edged sword…

    “In 1939, New York city politician Grover Aloysius Whalen asked Mussolini about the meaning behind Italian Fascism in 1939, the reply was: “It is like your New Deal!” There is a perfect example of the “abstraction” which underlies both the “individual” and the “group.” WTF?

    “But, on the likely chance that “the group” is some sort of “it takes a village to raise a child” sort of word salad abstraction then George Bernard Shaw is perfectly reasonable. It takes the Nazis to organize the village so that they can raise the child “properly.”” Double WTF!

    I love the pyrotechnique (pseudo-French you see!!!) word play you use. Apparently I am not the only one who can mix and match, and drop a connecting idea or two or three… Admittedly, not your best pieces, but hey, I don’t feel like digging up some better examples.

    “There is no basis of honest discussion with you because you never stand your ground and finish the point. Instead, you pick a little, talk a little and change the direction and shift into sophism high gear. In that comfortable self-directed road trip of the mind, you are happily overconfident, cocky, presumptuous and haughty.” You stand your ground, all right, but it isn’t honest. You are just as guilty of the multitude of sins you cast at my feet. Own your own nonsense. If you want me to do as you ask, I need to know that you are not going to hide behind your equally dishonest approach to our conversation. If you can’t do that, what is the point?. You have no skin in the game at the moment, and you act more like a dilettante than an intellectually rigorous defender of the sacred flame of individualism. You have to be willing to risk, Heliotrope. Otherwise, your deafening silence says it all–yes, you are bored, Heliotrope. Bored, bored, bored unto death. You want something more muscular more solid, more grounded, but are too … what? Timid? Afraid? Jaded? If you are tired of the arid desert around you at GP, then give up the bullshit you spout and come straight on–try some uffish thought for once. Twas brillig, indeed!

    Now for something completely different… I have my faults, its true–but then again, I don’t have your luxury of an adoring fan base who basically agree with what ever you say, logically constructed or not. Evasive or not. Thoughtful or not. You live in a lovely cocoon, all warm and snuggly. I get insults, bad faith, and (in the past) barely disguised threats of violence. I can’t help but think that if you were to bust out your signature moves on a site not so ideologically “comfortable” for you, that you would become, um, most uncomfortable, pretty quickly, as people would laugh at what you pull, or worse. Maybe you have the scars to show me I am wrong about that. I would be interested to hear of your battles with the Jabberwock, if they happened. Snicker-Snack!

    Good night.
    Cas

    Comment by Cas — March 28, 2017 @ 12:59 am - March 28, 2017

  18. OK, I have unloaded on you in a most unChristian manner and I do not take any satisfaction in having done so. Now, your feelings are hurt.

    You seem impervious to understanding that limited government and statism are polar opposites. And, for whatever cause or reason, you press the concept of state control over the population.

    We conservatives demand strong evidence that such control is beneficial.

    Benjamin Franklin wrote to Abbés Chalut and Arnaud on Apr. 17, 1787: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

    We are not as virtuous a people as we once were. When the religious ethic and religious foundation of morality become superficial, the population is “free” to construct the ethic and morality which is most useful to them under the times and their peculiar circumstances. But, since nature abhors a vacuum, some force will grow to fill the gap in religious ethic and morality and it is force itself which fills the vacuum. Be it statism based in Utopianism or just raw authoritarianism, it is never “vox populi.”

    Charlemagne was warned in 798 by Alcuin: Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit. [ And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness. ]

    There is the rub: If the voice of the crowd is virtuous, then God is in us and we need no other resource. The voice of the crowd would never err.

    We established the first written ordered government in the history of the world. Our representative Democracy began in March of 1789 and it has operated ceaselessly to this day in accordance with the ordered plan laid down by the Constitution of the United States of America. We are the longest continuous government in the history of the world.

    Benjamin Franklin advised that “without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.”

    And what do the liberals demand? Speech codes. Punishment for “hate speech.” “Political correctness” codes. Barring speakers who may offend. Managing of the “discourse” by social justice warriors who arise from nowhere.

    The liberals know that “the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness” and they manipulate the vox populi to threaten the orderly process of daily life with corrupt and vicious actions. “Black Lives Matter.” This is an insidious, tacit charge that some conspiratorial force is bent on black genocide.

    DemonizingRats resort to this “strategy” first and the only question unanswered is “how low will they go?” All the way to: “”They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

    Painting people as negatively stereotypical with a broad brush is a liberal staple. The natural reaction from us in the trashed caste is to dismiss such elitist superiority hyperbole as the dementia of grandiose delusion disorder.

    Most of us are quite used to being patronized and/or profiled as peasants desperately clinging to cults, dogma, prejudices and superstitions as we clod around in the uncultured darkness of our lives.

    Alinsky’s: RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.; RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

    The DemonizingRats and liberals immediately apply these two “rules” to whatever they target.

    Liberals don’t actually think in the sense that they search for truth or discovery. They strategize. The ends justify just about any means. The goal is rank and raw power.

    Benjamin Franklin observed: “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

    Marxism mesmerizes the useful idiots to help an elite attain power and then the powerful in the Marxist state herd the sheeple to their advantage. All the while, they preach the fairytale of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

    You come here thinking we boors and idiots are ripe to buy your Marxists horseshi*t and you get hurt feelings for your effort.

    If you had just one principle to sell, you wouldn’t play the unending intricate “discussion” regulations you constantly throw like some sort of foul flag.

    Your game is what is tiresome. And, for all intents and purposes, that is what you come here to accomplish.

    Why do I bother answering you? Because it annoys you.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 28, 2017 @ 1:18 pm - March 28, 2017

  19. Hi Heliotrope,
    “OK, I have unloaded on you in a most unChristian manner and I do not take any satisfaction in having done so. Now, your feelings are hurt.” Absolutely! I was crying tears all the way through this thread. So thank you. My feelings fly towards heaven on the wings of your apology.

    I have to give it to you! You made me laugh! I mean, how sly do you have to be to offer this gem…

    “The liberals know that “the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness” and they manipulate the vox populi to threaten the orderly process of daily life with corrupt and vicious actions. … DemonizingRats resort to this “strategy” first and the only question unanswered is “how low will they go?”

    Painting people as negatively stereotypical with a broad brush is a liberal staple. The natural reaction from us in the trashed caste is to dismiss such elitist superiority hyperbole as the dementia of grandiose delusion disorder.”

    That is so funny.

    This was cool as well: “Marxism mesmerizes the useful idiots to help an elite attain power and then the powerful in the Marxist state herd the sheeple to their advantage. All the while, they preach the fairytale of the dictatorship of the proletariat” Triple WTF!!!

    Don’t sweat it, Heliotrope. Why do you answer me–you are bored and want to entertain yourself. I get that now. Bravo.

    Comment by Cas — March 28, 2017 @ 9:43 pm - March 28, 2017

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

**Note: Your first comment will be held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**

Live preview of comment