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 ...
Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill ... and it's metastasized in the west.
A large part of liberalism is based on denial and slander, as their way of avoiding arguments. They won’t admit to history in its true form, for example. Hitler wasn’t a socialist, and Stalin wasn’t a communist. But you’re a racist, because Democrats freed the slaves.
Yup.
Huh?
In other words, it’s Alice in Wonderland mentality.
Denial of history, slander by calling you a racist. Haven’t you noticed that’s all they do? Take the average libera’s views on gun control, for example. Will they admit that Hitler used it against his population, or Stalin against his? The rebellions against Stalin’s forced collectivism might in fact have succeeded if they weren’t arleady disarmed down to their pitch forks. Stalin’s forces were armed to the teeth instead. They will deny it most of the time, but it’s in the history books.
I find that Liberals cannot think deeply, in terms of root causes. I had an argument with one today, in regards to taxing the poor. He couldn’t see the necessity of taxing those on low incomes, because they have so little. I explained to him that, when somebody doesn’t have to pay a price for their entitlements, there is no reason to not vote for more entitlements. Taxing the poor, even if its a relatively small amount, is a necessity to help protect the economy, which ultimately helps protect the poor. But he just could not see past that taxing low incomes, because they,have so little, was unjust.
What you are referring to is their inability to see cause and effect. Action and consequence, because they just blame whatever consequences they don’t like on someone else. If communism hasn’t worked in the past, for infinite example, it’s because of capitalists. However, I take partial disagreement with you. I don’t think those receiving entitlements should be taxed on what they’re getting through taxes anyway. Either they don’t get them, or they don’t get to vote while they are. But as you know, once people find out they can vote themselves the forced welfare of others, democracy ends.
Unfortunately, the Constitution guarantees a vote to all citizens, so you can’t deny them the vote. But I do think that they shouldn’t be protected from their own unwise acts.
Meant scarcasm, by “Huh?”. Good solid response, Telepathic Intruder. Thanks.
Your sublte reference to taxes, then. And you’ll admit to mine that someone going to the government for benefits in the first place will most likely vote for whatever party will grant those benefits? So there’s the hidden vote, based on incentive. And what party is now creating a greater lower class by attacking the upper class? There is the motive. What am I suggesting as a solution? Only if that we don’t find one we’re screwed.
Now, was Alice looking for br’ar rabbit or the white rabbit? Just kidd’n. Thanks.
Ah, the fine art of sarcasm. It’s often lost on me, even when it’s my own.
People respond to incentives. If the entitlement-minded saw their cheques become smaller, due to increased taxes, they wouldn’t be so quick to demand more entitlements. The solution, ultimately, is to get the feds to mind its own business in areas that are state responsibility.
Touche. We need to go back to the constitution. But as long as no one in particular is enforcing it (i.e. the Supreme Court), the fed itself will only recognize incentive (what gets the most votes).
Jonty30. Wow. So, in your reasoning- entitlement recievers, would lessen a demand on producers of tax wealth, by increased demand of gov’t tax, followed a lessening of benefits to the recievers. Been reading the little red book, have ya? Your disconnect is obvious. Try again.
People on welfare should not be allowed to vote.
Where is that located in the Constitution?
As I said, ultimately, getting the feds out if state business is the solution, but putting a bite on their entitlements will help.
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.