Posted on 11/19/2015 6:15:56 AM PST by Kaslin
They can't be this dumb, can they? They just can't be.
Our progressives Democratic friends aren't that stupid, right? But they are counting on the American people being stupid when it comes to world affairs. And there's very little to suggest they won't be successful in that endeavor.
Be it the president saying ISIS is "contained" hours before the group unleashed evil on the streets of Paris, or the secretary of state saying the Paris attacks were crazy, unlike the attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, where there was "legitimacy" and a "rationale" to them, nothing they say can be taken as serious thought.
The media did show some irritation with the president this week, but he pushed right back. Barack Obama showed an anger and frustration toward the press daring to question his wisdom in Turkey he normally reserves for Republicans. Repeatedly chastising reporters for asking him what he deemed similar questions, the president committed to staying on the same path that brought us to the point where dozens were dead in France and the West is on high alert.
There's something to be said for commitment, I guess. It'd be better in other aspects of his life, but at least the concept isn't completely foreign to him.
After damning the torpedoes and ordering the engines ahead full steam, the president then set about working on his main concern climate change. Yes, what computer models that can't accurately predict the past say will happen in 100 years is the major focus of this government in a time of mass slaughter.
Legacy, it would seem, is every bit as addictive as heroin.
But the administration can make that pivot because it can count on the media, no matter how poorly they're treated, to be the Ginger Rogers to its Fred Astaire they go where they’re led, happily.
As Hillary Clinton said in the debate no one watched (seriously, is the next "protect Hillary from anyone seeing her be a crazy leftist" debate on the Friday Star Wars opens? Might as well be), we are at war with "violent extremists."
No one questioned what type of extremists she was talking about because everyone knew it. She's not talking about violent Black Lives Matters extremists or campus crybaby extremists, she's talking about Islamic extremists. She just won't say it. Is there any reason to believe she'd actually fight it?
We'll never know because she'll never be asked in any way that will require a serious answer.
While Democrats implode, the media plays guard dog.
Just one example is the Huffington Post. It's an ultra-leftwing blog with media credentials, but many people actually believe what they read there.
In a piece by someone they bill as a "reporter," the Huffington Post declares "The West Is Giving ISIS Exactly What It Wants." The sub-headlines are equally as journalistic, "Unfortunately, conservatives in the U.S. and Europe seem to want to do all the wrong things."
Again, this is a "news" piece written by a "reporter," not a column on the opinion pages.
The argument, if you can call it that, is threefold and is described as being embraced by "policymakers," though each section cites only one liberal of dubious credentials.
First, keeping refugees in the Middle East increases the prospect that they'll be radicalized. "Josh Hampson argues in The Hill that keeping Syrian refugees in the Middle Eastern countries where they are currently concentrated increases the probability that they will grow susceptible to radicalization." Hampson, according to his byline, is "a research associate at the Niskanen Center where he focuses on defense reform and foreign policy." Well, if there's a greater authority on the issue I’ve never heard of him.
Hampson's theory is that these people are so fragile that proximity to terrorists increases the likelihood they'll decide to join a death cult. Are those who we really want in this country? People who are essentially a coin flip away from terrorism? They're not exactly walking into a thriving economy where jobs await them.
Second, reacting to terrorism negatively runs the risk of creating more terrorists, particularly American Muslims. Yes, it's that stupid. "One of the goals of attacks like the one in Paris is to provoke an overreaction that will make some Muslims in the West feel that Islam is inherently irreconcilable with the culture of the countries they live in." In short, be careful to how you react after being punched in the face because more people will want to punch you in the face.
By "overreaction" the implication is clear take your medicine, pretend it didn't happen or else it will happen again. It's battered woman syndrome on a national scale and it's presented as fact in a "news" story.
Third, by refusing refugees, the West is aiding ISIS because they don't want Muslims to leave the region as it makes them look bad. But ISIS knows who is leaving and from where and could stop some if not most of them if it desired. But they're not.
The expert cited in this section, who is irrelevant here, “goes on to cite a dozen statements from Islamic State leaders warning refugees against heading to Europe or other ‘infidel’ lands.†A dozen statements from a terrorist organization not exactly known as a paragon of truth and virtue, that’s “proof.â€
This "news" piece, which is just one of many, concludes, almost miraculously, exactly how the Democratic Party wants it to "if Europe and the United States were to shut out Syrian refugees, they would be foregoing an advantage they have over the Islamic State group."
Weird how that just so happens to dovetail perfectly with what the president is demanding, isn’t it?
Other arguments from other "journalists" are just as flimsy, but because they're reported by news outlets they will find legs with the uninformed.
What's difficult to understand is why any of these people care so deeply that they’d make fools of themselves to advance the agenda of a lame-duck president who's never shown them particular favor or loyalty. They couldn't possibly believe what they say, could they?
Do they really believe otherwise well-adjusted people decided to commit their lives to murder because they heard about a small prison on a tropical island? That they were normal people interested in hanging out with their friends until Gitmo was explained to them?
Might I suggest that if someone was turned to murder by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed having water poured up his nose they were going to murder no matter what.
Still, this makes sense to our liberal friends. They have sympathy for the unstable person out there. They'd rather those people bring their instability to this country for reasons that make sense only if you know how Democrats work.
People are their race, their gender, their sexual preference, anything but individuals to Democrats. Not since the defeat of the Axis Powers has the world seen more earnest and insistent propagandists. It’s a family tradition, if you will, on the left.
The real question is why our progressives friends want to bring ethnic and religious minorities to a country with racism in its DNA, were its campuses are overrun with racists keeping minority students oppressed, where the very system is stacked against them because of who they are. Why bring them here?
The answer is they either hate them or they know everything they stand for and claim as justification for it is a lie. Since they view individuals as disposable, logically it could be both. But there’s nothing logical about liberals. The simplest answer is always the right answer, and the worst, when it comes to our opponents: It's "Agenda Über Alles."
They aren’t dumb.
They are evil. And driven by the Prince of Lies.
It took me a long time to realize this, but it is entirely a faith and spiritual matter.
Liberal logic.
The baseline of all oxymorons.
This is especially true for the chattering classes, who's legions grow each year with the addition of tens of thousands of new "journalism" and "communications" graduates, all of whom need something to write about.
In fact they live in fear of running out of things to write about.
One hundred years ago, young people who aspired to be "great writers" went abroad to find wars to witness, to find pungent story material on which to build their careers.
Today's nascent Hemingways are too lazy and nihilistic to go abroad to find war. They want the war brought to them.
Leftists wish me dead. That’s all I need to know.
PROGRESSIVE = REPRESSIVE
Liberals have no interest in sharing political power with conservatives, or even considering any perspective but their own. Once they’re in charge, that’s it. They will do anything to keep the status quo intact, including national cultural suicide.
As a native Californian, I’ve seen this up close and personal. Which is why my escape plan is underway. I hate leaving this beautiful state, my home for 62 years, but enough is enough.
As I no longer have hope that sanity will return in my lifetime.
Now we see this same mass retardation playing out on a national level, with Lurch, BamBam, the Hildebeast, and others. And their media watchdogs insure that they’re never held responsible for the train wrecks of their creation.
It’s always been up to us to keep our country on track, now more than ever. This next general election is make or break. If we can’t overcome the continued infestation by the left, with their despicable tactics, we’re doomed.
Exactly, because liberals have no logic.
Liberalism is based on emotions and “feeling”. Logic, facts and reality (or truth, for that matter), have no place in the mind of most on the Left.
Liberal logic has to do with logically bringing about the revolution by being illogical.
IMHO
Here is a global example of the flawed liberal logic.
We pass laws because we cannot trust the people, but we trust the people to obey the laws we pass.
The other day I found myself very puzzled. I know what I believe, why I believe it, the philosophical foundations of my beliefs. I've studied everything from Karl Marx to Ludwig von Mises, from Friedrich Hayek to FDR, from Edmund Burke to Bertrand Russell, from Aristotle to Ayn Rand.
I understand modern conservative thought. I understand libertarian thought. I understand classical liberalism.
What I can't begin to comprehend is modern liberalism. Maybe you can help me.
As near as I can tell, to be a liberal:
You have to believe that the lack of funding spreads AIDS.
You have to believe that only churches pre-approved by the government are valid.
You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand... in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.
You have to believe that the same public school system who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid.
You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.
You have to believe that global temperatures are affected less by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun and affected more by yuppies driving SUVs.
You have to believe that sexual roles are artificial but being gay is natural.
You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.
You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.
You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the quality that PBS does.
You have to believe the NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.
You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.
You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.
You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.
You have to believe second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.
You have to believe conservatives are racists but that black people couldn't make it without liberal help.
You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
Looking back on my list, it seems shallow, muddled, contradictory, divorced of logic and a bit sadistic.
Well, then.
If that doesn't describe the modern liberal, I don't know what does.
I would add several others, among them:
You have to believe that Socialists are good for the America political process, but marginalized Evangelical Christians can't participate.
What would you add to the definition of modern liberalism not covered? Or, how would you improve on the definitions given?
Substitute “Iranian Mullahs” for the “Red Chinese” and it is just as up-to-date today as it was 16 years ago.
Liberal Logic= Oxymoron
I see it everyday....even here.
Yup. There’s nothing logical about liberalism. It’s all about emotions.
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.