Liberals – Running At Top Speed With Undersized Motors

I'll say it again. No liberal position can stand the test of reason.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but I won't be. That's because even if there is some rationale behind something liberals believe, there are no liberals capable of making the case. They've been indoctrinated, their education system has failed them, and now they have a huge base that, out of blind trust and acceptance, and their inability to analyze for themselves believes what their leaders advance .

You saw it right here over the past few days. Someone makes a statement or a charge, and that's good enough. I guess when they do that where they come from, everyone nods their heads in agreement and moves on – to the next tautology.

Sure I despise them as soon as I recognize what's happening, but I'm tempered by the fact that it's hardly their own individual faults. Of course, that doesn't make them any less dangerous.

Thus the dilemma. They are no longer educable if indeed they ever were, and because so many agree with them, they aren't forced to realize how stupid they are, and in fact, they are even emboldened to think they actually know something and that their arguments are rooted in some truth and logic.

But they never are.

Never.

They don't want to prevail through reason or justice, they just wnat to prevail by any means possible. How else can you explain the hysteria over Valerie Plame, for example, and the lack of any perceptibel reaction to the New York Times treasonous disclosures – and now ABC's?

And it's always the same, just different faces – or UIDs as the case may be.

So I try to engage them, to get them to focus. I know that if I'm successful – as I was on one occasion years ago, they will founder immediately once they get past their premise, but it's the rare case who can or will even get that far.

So it's "Bush lied!" How? "Because there were no WMDs." So that means he lied how? "Because he knew there weren't any." And you know this how? "Because they didn't find any."

What do you do now? I mean, that's where I just start insulting them, but what do you do, try to show them the error of their ways? Good luck.

Last night, on borderline idiot, Glenn Beck's show, he was lamenting the fact that we can't have a dialogue between the left and the right. Then he cited some of the many starting points of liberals and quickly arrived at the realization that they "got a way of starting conversation that ends conversation," as Paul Newman said in Harper.

They start with something they believe is irrefutable, and they put it in the form of a charge instead of a question. And that's why I start with the insults early and often now.

I know from experience where it's going to lead, and I'd rather cut to the chase. Sure I risk putting off decent and sincere people like Aput, but he's young, and he'll have to learn for himself. And if I lose him, Perhaps someday he'll say, "Damn, now I understand, Ted," or however Muslims say that – "Shazaam," maybe? Or is that Gomer Pyle?

Anyway, that one idiot here who shall remain nameless, and not just because he's stupid, but because his username is also stupid, actually got my hopes up when he cited a conservative and provided a link in his argument that terrorist sanctuaries were going to be harder to destroy than we might imagine.

OK, I'll buy that, especially since nothing has been easy. but then I apparently did something he wasn't used to – I challenged him to, if not provide a solution, at least to detail a course of action in light of the information he provided.

Nothing.

I purposely stated the absurd with full knowledge that it was likely his actual position – that because these sanctuaries are difficult to locate and difficult to put out of commission, his argument is that we should just call the whole thing off.

It's times like that you stifle the feeling that you hope the next attack on our soil is in his backyard. I mean it would take that to have him get the message, wouldn't it?

Apparently not. Three thousand dead in our front yard wasn't enough.

So by all means, you continue to deal with liberals as you see fit – and I'll continue to make this place unsafe for them at any speed.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Advertisements

About tedwest

A longtime veteran of comedy and political forums, I decided that I needed a more restful venue because... well... I finally hate everybody. Except my wife that is... and my ex-wife.. and... no, that's about it. I lead about as simple a life as one can, preferring activities that include anything that doesn't involve going out and seeing YOU! And I particularly enjoy what I call "Get the Bitch" movies on Lifetime. You know the ones where the intended victim finally does something so incredibly stupid that she forfeits her right to live, and from that moment on you're rooting for the stalker. Of course, it rarely works out the way you want, but when it does, the feeling you get is... well, there's nothing else like it, other than, maybe, eating chocolate chip cookies. Oh, and I'm proudly anti-wildlife, both foreign and domestic, and anti-environment - especially foreign environments. I think Howard Stern put it best when he said, "If fifty percent of the population died tomorrow, I can live with that." And I feel the same about the other fifty percent, so together, we've pretty much got it all covered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Liberals – Running At Top Speed With Undersized Motors

  1. Muslims don't yell "Shazam". We leave that to Captain Marvel…Who the heck is Gomer Pyle?Guess the reason why left and right can't talk is because no one is open to what the other has to say.But till then, I'm still open for discussion.Any word on Scio, Scio, or has he been drinking himself drunk to the point of not posting?

  2. TedWest says:

    Don't know about Scio, but then I don't know about anybody.
    And I thought I'd just detailed why left and right can't talk – because there's no one on the left who's not an idiot. Was I not clear?
    I mean surely you can't think that Snowy a non-idiot? Or maybe you don't realize that being an idiot has nothing to do with intelligence? I mean, there are plenty of smart liberals, and they're usually the biggest idiots.
    Which of course means that Snowy is average on both counts.
    But I kid her…

  3. Stephen says:

    I don't see how a conservative idealogy can be supported in a similar way. The war on drugs and the gay marriage debate? These are not rational positions.

  4. TedWest says:

    Stephen,
    LOL! That's because Libertarians are wacko in their own way as evidenced by your "if I had owned a country" thread. Btw, I think you should name it the Isle of the Flies
    But now the topics you mentioned are in the abstract. I don't support the war on drugs as constituted, but I am absolutely and irrevocably opposed to gay marriage, and certainly not on religious grounds.

  5. A good example of why it is impossible to have a civil discussion with a 'liberal' is proven by one of their biggest and loudest liberals, Rosie O'Donnell. She cannot contain herself in a respectful manner. She must screech and yell in your face and behave in a most disgusting manner. Yet, she is very, very popular with the libs. She is treated like a queen by that side of the fence. I only wish they would deadbolt the gate so she could not escape the the sane side of the fence and give all of us migraines.There are others who make my skin crawl, like John Edwards. He gives lawyers a bad name and I bet you thought that was impossible. I'd give anything to see a Marine barber get a hold of his hair. Lol, Lol, Lol…If you want to know real sleaze, guess who asked for political donations for his campaign when he replied to all the well-wishers, who sent cards and letters and emails to his wife in hopes she would conquer her cancer. You got it – John (the man in the mirror), Edwards. I don't always agree with Republicans, but I do agree with conservatives, real conservatives, not the imitation conservatives.

  6. TedWest says:

    You said it in spades!
    Now watch some liberal call me a racist.

  7. HV says:

    Racist!

    Okay, I'm not a liberal, I just like doing that to you.

    The point you made was very well stated my friend.

  8. Chad says:

    Hiya Ted,
    Boy, this post sure generated a lot of comments. I think part of the problem is
    your dealing with people whose brains have been wired in such a way so as to
    give them an epistemological framework which is out of touch with reality. This
    is a generalization…I think (though I have yet to find a modern liberal who won’t
    redefine the rules of engagement when it strikes his/her fancy). These folks
    simply don’t have the same conceptions of reality as those of us on the other
    side of the aisle, philosophically speaking. I’m convinced that is why the
    liberals I know and love are utterly committed to things like moral relativism
    and post modernism. They also seem to have an affinity for nonlinear thinking, emotionalism
    and the subsequent ad hominem/straw man posturing that comes along with 16
    years of liberal indoctrination. Ironically, they seem to have no self awareness,
    which explains why they want moral rules to apply to everyone else but
    themselves. That’s not being mean or condescending, that’s just a fact. If you
    find a modern liberal who doesn’t want to jettison rationality in favor of
    changing the subject or raising their voice when they should be strengthening
    their argument, please give me their url so I can link to them. That all sounds
    pretty cynical, I know. But keep this in mind, Ted: At one time I was a fire-breathing
    modern liberal. It took me a few years to come around, but I did come around. So there’s hope.

    BTW, I’m thinking of starting another blog for ex liberals.
    I think I’m going to call it Liberals Anonymous
    or LA.com. I can see it now: “Hi. I’m Chad and I’m an ex liberal. It has
    been 12 years since my last tree hugging escapade. I was an animal rights
    activist and a staunch proponent of a women’s right to murder her unborn child.
    I also was given to fits of rage when my most cherished beliefs were challenged
    and was the epitome of hypocrisy, since I regularly called people hateful,
    intolerant, homophobic, racist, stupid, sexually repressed, judgmental, and
    much worse…but failed to recognize that by engaging in such behavior I was a
    model of that which I claimed to abhor. Please stand and recite with me the
    oath of ex liberals…” You get the idea.

    Have a great day!

  9. I think Snowy is looking at a different set of facts as you are and both of you are coming up with different conclusions.Take for example the whole WMD bit. Snowy seems to think that Bush lied because he knew, when actually he had no clue. He was just being fed the information and spewed out speeches saying that WMDs were in Iraq and that America was apparently duty bound to save the world yet again.Whereas others simply see this as a makeshift reason to go into Iraq after they continually broke almost all the restrictions imposed on them after Desert Storm, and that the end was what was important, not the reason that got them there.Personally, I know that there are many reasons America wanted to go into Iraq, and I happen to know the most insincere one was the whole "We want to give Iraqi's freedom" bit, because that could have been done by covert operations, training and simple funding of local opposition groups, like how you guys planned the whole Bay of Pigs invasion, or how America helped Iraq try to take over Iran after Iran kicked out their pro-American Shah.It was probably for the oil, or to lower their unemployment numbers, or even to boost American economy through the war, or to get more profits for the war contractors, or Israel said so….who knows?It could be a combination of all those reasons.Liberals look too much on the negatives, and conservatives like you, well, forgive me for saying, are wayyyy to positive when it comes to Bush. So much so that some call him a genius, whereas perhaps half the world population looks at him and calls him a moron.But I kid the President….I know you don't, Ted.I've seen you call him a moron, but you know there are those who do.No one's an idiot. It's just how we need present the info that gave us the basis of that argument. Perhaps more links to the information?

  10. TedWest says:

    A-man,
    It seems to me that you're at a crossroads. You can choose to remain in the realm of fuzzy logic, or you can choose reason. You can remain in the security of those who think along the lines you've detailed, or you can decide to be your own man. But friends disappear when you do that. You find new ones, but they are in far fewer numbers – there just aren't that many rational people out there.
    Your comments are reminiscent of a guy named Hal who was very polite and respectful, but who was completely whacked. Now it's important that you get the "reminiscent of" part, because you aren't Hal by a long stretch and I believe you want reason to prevail, however unpleasant it's revelations.
    So let me tell you what you've done. In an effort to be fair to all parties, you've equated me with Snowy – a woman who cannot successfully defend anything and whose "facts' are made up or twisted to suit her position(s).
    If you think that Snowy and I are separate but equal, there's no need for me to say anything more.
    From reading the remainder of your comment, I must say it contains the seeds of a rather interesting discussion, but it's one in which you will either see the light in the end, or we will end up going our separate ways.
    And to give you something to think about, it is certainly possible that oil and other special interests are involved in our decision to invade Iraq, but by far, the overriding reason is that Saddam represented an increasingly looming threat. It had nothing to do with WMDs or freeing the Iraqi people – and no one ever claimed it did. At least no one in the administration. I'm sure Snowy did though.

  11. TedWest says:

    Chad,
    Weren't we all liberals once, before we decided – enough with this stupidity? A good friend in college once asked me to go to a Conservative Club meeting, and I told him that he should not ask me to do that again if he expected to remain friends with me.
    Now I'd like to beg his forgiveness and tell him how wrong I was. Liberals simply have no redeeming value, and I wouldn't knowingly be friends with one. And yes, I realize how far removed that makes me even from the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.
    But to me, real liberalism, not the kind you and I were lulled into, is a psychological disorder, not unlike pedophilia and homosexuality.
    HV,
    Coming from you, "racist" is a compliment.
    Wait, that didn't come out right, did it?

  12. HV says:

    Well Ted I have called you worse than racist, moron seemed to be the most common though.
    Hope your day was smashing, you old fart.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s