Liberals Have the Mentality of Kindergarteners, Comedian Says

CNS News.com ^ | 3/6/07 | Monisha Bansal

[redstates4ever]

Liberals are wrong about everything and have the mentality of kindergarteners, in the view of conservative comedian and commentator Evan Sayet.

"The Democrats are wrong on quite literally every issue," Sayet said at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., on Monday. "They are not just wrong. They are as wrong as wrong can be.

"It's not just domestic policy. It's foreign policy. It's every policy," he said, adding that liberals are "diametrically opposed to that which is good, right and successful."

"The modern liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success," Sayet said.

[svensun]

Folks,

Some of you misunderstood what Evan said in his presentation at the Heritage Foundation.

First of all, yes Evan is a comedian, but his presentation on "How Modern Liberals Think' is serious, deadly serious for those who are hurt by Liberal mentality.

View the Heritage Foundation presentation:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017172.php

Then check out Evan's website for more information on what he does and says:

http://www.evansayet.com/

[supercat]

Simply stated, the theory asserts that liberals are persons who lack the gene that allows humans to mentally process reality. Until the exact gene is located, it will remain a theory. However, until then, much empirical evidence of the liberals’ inability to process reality exists to support the theories premise.

As a former liberal, I must dispute the genetics theory.

From what I remember of my own upbringing, I think the key to liberalism is growing up with a set of axiomatic beliefs that, while they may have some slight basis in fact, are not completely true. For example, "pollution is destroying the planet; therefore it's critically important to do everything possible to fight pollution." Once the belief is regarded as axiomatic, then those who support such belief are regarded as virtuous and trustworthy, while those who oppose any measure aimed at "fighting pollution" are evil and corrupt.

The people who oppose some measures to "fight pollution" may try to put forth arguments as to why such measures are unnecessary, but since such arguments contradict the truth which is understood by anyone with half a brain, all they do is expose those who make them as being, at best, ignorant fools.

There are many other aspects to liberalism; I haven't figured out how they all fit together, but when one starts following the rest topple like dominoes.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Absolutely, he is correct. I've been saying this for a long time. Liberals seem to be stuck with the reasoning power of a very young child. They are incapable of considering consequences of actions.

It is not possible for a liberal to think long term. That is the problem.

[ronnie raygun]

Hey, don't degrade kindergartners at least they know not to eat the crayons!

[supercat]

I think liberals have well developed skills of logic, reasoning, and rhetoric. They use them to persuade those that don't. They use them in the furtherance of both evil, and their own personal fortunes.

Liberalism does have a certain definite logic to it, but the axioms upon which it is based have only a passing resemblance to reality. Unfortunately, some false axioms can become sufficiently embedded into liberals' thinking that the simplest explanations for things are regarded as impossible, and thus much more complicated explanations become necessary.

In a way, liberalism could be regarded as the nesting of epicycles practiced by geocentric astronomers, but the analogy falls somewhat sort: while astronomers' nested epicycles may not have represented the ways planets actually move, they were nonetheless effective at predicting where in the sky planets would appear. Liberals, by contrast, are always retroactively adjusting their theories and always have confidence in their models even though their predictive accuracy is truly horrible.

[supercat]

4) The glitterati such a Babs Streisand, and Algore, and the rest, who use liberal nostrums such as the "green" or "animal rights" movements to A)reduce the numbers of the "great unwashed" and B)increase the separation between them and us until "A" can be accomplished.

Another factor for some of them is the "Emperor's New Clothes" phenomenon. When people are convinced that any intelligent person can see something, they'll see it too whether or not it's really there.

[Hardastarboard]

I sometimes get sloppy and say "Democrats" and even "liberals" when I mean specifically MODERN LIBERALS.

Welcome to Free Republic, Evan. Glad you're one of us. You can be excused for failing on the subtle distinction you mention above, since there frequently isn't one. Thanks for having the courage to stand up and publicly say what so many of us think.

[AmishDude]

Nah. This is actually very smart of him. He is now in a niche market and if you realize that most comedians make their money in front of small audiences -- corporate gigs, etc. -- then you can see that focusing on political jokes from a conservative perspective is not such a bad plan.

[johna61]

How about Liberal republicans or RINOS like the girly man like Rudy?

[chesley]

Well, yes. Proper logic always leads to the correct conclusions according to its underlying assumptions. But the assumptions can be incorrect. Just like a computer, garbage in, garbage our.

Liberals' assumptions, or axioms, certainly do not correspond closely with reality. When I was working on my PhD, I used a computer model to predict how my experiment would turn out. When it didn't turn out that way, I tweaked the program until it did. But I never was able to tweak the experiment. Mother Nature wouldn't allow it.

Liberals have another trait, too. They are willing to use logical fallacies to prove their point, too. The smart ones are perfectly aware of what they are doing, and the stupid ones are stupid.

[chesley]

Yes, that's a good thought.