Posted on 05/23/2018 2:55:36 AM PDT by beachn4fun
Good. We want them running the antifa fascists.
Even sports fans and dancing with the stars morons get it
Ask them "Do you want to live like ants?"
The DNC “leadership” (if you can call it that) are all saying “wrong to talk about impeachment”. LIARS! They know they can’t win on that platform but if they’re elected it’ll be the first thing they do.
They can’t even be honest about it.
The DLC “Moderates” went down for the count when Hildebeast was defeated.
It is Bernie’s party now. An Organize Wall Street camp with ballots. And the kids ain’t listening when the adults tell them what to do.
It’s as bad as calling them “liberals.” According to Safire’s New Political Dictionary) American socialists misappropriated that term in the 1920s.It’s easy to criticize our own people for accepting the socialists’ self-designations, but it is very difficult to get around the roadblock to rational thought which those self-designations represent. Given that socialists control both academia and big journalism, that control of language is pretty much inevitable.
I’ve been trying to get to the bottom of that mess for many decades, and I feel that I have peeled a layer or two off of the onion. The first thing to understand about “the media” is that the central problem is journalism. Granted that fictional movies tend to project socialist assumptions, as long as there is a First Amendment (please God, “forever”) nobody is going to outlaw storytelling any time soon.
Why is journalism such a problem? IMHO: because journalism is in the business of interesting the public as well as that of gaining influence. It is natural for people to want influence:
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.But the business of interesting the public implies following the rules for doing it - and “If it bleeds, it leads” is one of those rules for commercial success. Has nothing to do with “the public interest,” mind - only with the journalist’s gaining money and influence.The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
Another rule for journalist to gain money and influence is to promote the idea that journalism is objective. You might expect that journalists would compete with each other for the respect of the audience by claiming to be more objective than the competition, but that is not what we observe. Instead,
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nationsseems to be the order of the day. Do journalists “meet together?” The Associated Press was founded in the 1840s, and the AP newswire is nothing other than a continuous virtual meeting of all major American journalists. If there is anything at all to Adam Smith’s prediction, then, we must expect that journalists in America should be tight as ticks. And they are. They never promote their own objectivity above that of any other journalist who is in good standing with wire service journalism as a whole. Let anyone outside the club (Sean Hannity, say) suggest that any such member of the club is anything other than pure as the wind-driven snow, and suddenly he “is not a journalist, not objective.”The major flaws in the assumption by journalists that journalists are objective include
Journalists are cynical about society, but since the rationale of government is precisely to constrain the failings of society, cynicism towards society inherently corresponds to faith in, even naiveté towards, government. And the combination of cynicism towards society and naiveté towards government is the defining quality of socialism. Via the medium of the AP wire, journalists conspire against society by promoting socialism.
- in their field - hyper topical nonfiction - there is always room for legitimate controversy due to the “fog” of conflicting early reports of any major event - the “fog of war” being merely the most excruciating example.
- given the above, any claim of actual objectivity - not a claim, laudable if true, to be trying to be objective - implies that the arrogant believer of such self-praise actually is not even trying to be objective, because such a person takes his own objectivity for granted.
- “If it bleeds, it leads,” makes journalism knowingly negative, and yet they claim that journalists are objective. This amounts to suggesting that negativity is objectivity - a conceit which can be considered the very definition of “cynicism.”
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.So, IMHO, the correct line of attack against socialism, and against its pillars of support in journalism and academia, is to accuse them of cynicism. And point out such things asSociety in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil . . . were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no [government] - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
- From Theodore Roosevelt's 1910 speech at the Sarbonne:
- There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
The Influence of Socialist Writers
How did politicians ever come to believe this weird idea that the law could be made to produce what it does not contain — the wealth, science, and religion that, in a positive sense, constitute prosperity? Is it due to the influence of our modern writers on public affairs?
Present-day writers — especially those of the socialist school of thought — base their various theories upon one common hypothesis: They divide mankind into two parts. People in general — with the exception of the writer himself — form the first group. The writer, all alone, forms the second and most important group. Surely this is the weirdest and most conceited notion that ever entered a human brain!
In fact, these writers on public affairs begin by supposing that people have within themselves no means of discernment; no motivation to action. The writers assume that people are inert matter, passive particles, motionless atoms, at best a kind of vegetation indifferent to its own manner of existence. They assume that people are susceptible to being shaped — by the will and hand of another person — into an infinite variety of forms, more or less symmetrical, artistic, and perfected. Moreover, not one of these writers on governmental affairs hesitates to imagine that he himself — under the title of organizer, discoverer, legislator, or founder — is this will and hand, this universal motivating force, this creative power whose sublime mission is to mold these scattered materials — persons — into a society.
These socialist writers look upon people in the same manner that the gardener views his trees. Just as the gardener capriciously shapes the trees into pyramids, parasols, cubes, vases, fans, and other forms, just so does the socialist writer whimsically shape human beings into groups, series, centers, sub-centers, honeycombs, labor-corps, and other variations. And just as the gardener needs axes, pruning hooks, saws, and shears to shape his trees, just so does the socialist writer need the force that he can find only in law to shape human beings.
“The Lsw” - Frederic Bastiat
“uncertainty remains around the Democratic Party’s ability to retake the House in November.”
“uncertainty” ?????????
There is just a little bit of doubt. We were certain, we should be certain.
We are mostly certain that we will retake the House, but some uncertainty remains.
The whole statement is based on the premise that the Dims WILL/ARE SUPPOSED TO, retake the House.
Utter BULLSHIRT!
After labor day, when the campaign actually begins in earnest and the TV money starts to really flow, there will be a blood bath.
Republicans will have so many offensive democrat sound bites it will take a suit of lead lined cast iron armour for a democrat to appear in public...... even in some “safe” blue districts.
The armour can be penetrated though and there is going to be blood in the streets.
Actually Regressives is a good term. They want to regress into the hands of a communism/socialism dictatorship.
Most definitely sounds like our MSM.
Another example of voting for someone simply because of their sexual preference. I think the homosexual crowd THINKS that a homosexual in office will do for them what many in the black community hoped a black president would do for them.
I’ve been calling them that on Twitter for months. They get VERY angry and block me for it. I’ve been reported for that one phrase more than any other.
I’ve been calling them that on Twitter for months. They get VERY angry and block me for it. I’ve been reported for that one phrase more than any other.
_____________
the truth hurts, doesn’t it.
I’ve been calling them that on Twitter for months. They get VERY angry and block me for it. I’ve been reported for that one phrase more than any other.
_____________
the truth hurts, doesn’t it.
Say it loud and say it proud :: FASCIST LEFTISTS!
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.