Posted on 11/17/2008 9:29:49 PM PST by do the dhue
Former Airborne Evan Sayet explains how the modern liberal thinks at the Heritage Foundation. Sayet is a Conservative Homorist/Pundit. This video is informative and funny at times.
Sayet states, "frankly, if it was just stupidity, they would be right more often. That was the expression, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Evan a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again." He says a lot more meaningful and insightful things, but that one kind of tickled me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
For later.
LOL
Even if they willing, if if they wanted, they don’t need to think; they have somebody in the White House who will do that for them now.
“Conservative Homorist?”
He tries to explain what he does here:
good stuff too, he says they label their shows the exact opposite of what they are. Hardball with Chris Mathews, Politically Incorrect with the most politically correct guy on the planet, there's Larry King ... Live. It is kind of the same act but still good:
On me!!
my foul!!
RATS!
I’ve seen this vid for the past 2 years and haven’t gotten sick of it.He’s missing some points and IT IS looong..but worth it.
I couldn’t tell how long it had been around for sure. I knew it had been around some time though. I guess it things are new until you see them once?????
He looks like Richard Lewis, who played Prince John in Robin Hood: Men In Tights.
Just like a good but relevant movie such as The Dark Knight, you can either watch it multiple times or whip it out once in a blue moon and savor it. It’s the message..
Good to see you and thanks for the pings.
>> My movie is Josey Wales. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen it and I will watch it again:
Mine is RED DAWN. It still brings tears to my eyes when Americans shoot Commie bastards dead...(sniff)
I guess Josey Wales is not very relevant, it’s just my favorite.
Hey, I got it: they sing ‘The yellow Rose of Texas” in Josey Wales and you can say liberals bellies are yellow. So, liberals bellies and the rose have relevancy. Works for me, anyway.
That is a good one. I just hope it don’t come to that.
Is it me or isn’t it the same actor who played Josey Wales’ bounty hunter (or former guerilla leader) the same guy who played the Police Commissioner (who’s always on Harry Callahan’s case) in Eastwood’s Dirty Harry movies?
Well, I sent it along to my brain washed liberal professor daughter who doesn't speak to me anyway. She won't watch it, but I keep trying.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2133962/posts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8
Some good stuff in that video from HowObamagotelected.com
I cant answser that one.
That Youtube video is a certified classic for conservatives. As I’ve said..seen it more than 20 times in 2 years and never got tired of it. Wished there was a shortened version of it though but then again, why watch a hour version of Gone with the Wind?
Also the non-white vote was incredibly anti-white:
Race: Obama/McCain
White Americans: 43/55
Black Americans: 95/4
Latino Americans: 67/31
Asian Americans: 62/35
Other Americans: 66/31
This is our reward for the ’65 immigration act.
One can understand how the aversion to discrimination would find fertile ground in a people who have been so discriminated against over millennia and American Jews have famously and righteously fought against racial and ethnic discrimination in America. Evan Sayet says that aversion to making discriminations has led to a nihilism in our culture. A resolute determination by the left not to judge. Therefore a modern liberal cannot choose, or more accurately, steadfastly refuses to choose between that which produces good and that which produces evil.
I for one have been concerned about this phenomenon and have addressed it on my about page in which I argued that liberalism is an empty philosophy which avoids exposing itself to rational analysis by resort to the race card. So Sayet performs a service in attempting to tell us how it is that liberals got to the place where relativism rules and nihilism looms. The race card is the greatest enabler for liberals, it simply shuts down all debate, it shuts down the Old Testament commitment for good over evil.
Although Sayet does not go there, I have for some time been equally concerned about how the exponents of The Frankfurt School have provided the language and the rationale by which the left has substituted its shibboliths for rational thought. Relativism itself is an explicit product of The Frankfurt School and I think it is important to see that it was a deliberately fashioned tool to get society's mind to the place where it would reject those values which opposed communism and accept those values (or in this case actually reject all values) which welcome collectivism. The Frankfurt School has also given us the illogic of feminism, the dogmatism of anti-Americanism, the nihilism of cultural Marxism. The list of The Frankfurt School syllogisms is long and it is ever lurking on our shoulder, not the shoulder where the better angels of our nature roost. So this brings us back to Evan Sayet who does not tell us why the school should be in so infected but simply sees that they are. He knows this from his New York liberal Jewish experience.
There is another layer of the onion which I wish Sayet had attempted to peel away. What is the human impulse that leaves liberals in this debased state? For the answer to this question, I think we should turn to another former Jewish liberal, Dennis Prager. Prager is noteworthy among radio personalities because he attempts to grapple with fundamental questions. A few years ago he wrote a column to the effect that one's politics are fixed by whether we think of men as good or evil. His assertion is counterintuitive, liberals regard man as good and conservatives see man and evil. So we Christian conservatives do not see man as in need of instruction or motivation, we see him in need of redemption. Prager says that liberals see man as good, or at least as a blank slate, which can be stimulated to behaviors which liberals approve of-like using condoms. One need not look further than the children singing the Obama songs or the use of the quasi military garb prancing about, to understand this impulse. The compulsory civilian service to the nation which Obama intends to impose on the generations coming of age is only the inevitable expression of this belief in the perfectibility of man.
Finally, one more layer of the onion. The real fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is the absence of or the belief in God. Liberals essentially reject God because they are committed to playing God. All of the rest of the belief structure, all the posturing of concern and commitment to society, all of the convolution of the language, all of the rejection of a rational discrimination, is nothing but a rationalization allowing the liberal to play God. This is the oldest and gravest sin known to the Judeo-Christian tradition. All of the hate, intolerance, and vilification of Christianity (read Sarah Palin) is a visceral reaction to the frustration they encounter from conservatives as they play God. Ann Coulter got it right in the tagline to one of her books: "they would be God." The ultimate example of playing God is the issue of "choice." Fundamental to the Judeo-Christian heritage is respect for human life because it is a creation of God. Abortion, even more than slavery, is the ultimate in playing God, one declares his transcendence over God's creation and in the stroke of a knife becomes God himself.
ping
That’s a great synopsis. Many thanks.
You are often a good source of insight. Keep it up.
Standing O!!!
Very good. Original sin=they would be God.
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.