Townhall.com
Derek Hall
May 21, 2017

That liberals are hypocrites is not news. Just take a look at the net worth of any Democratic Party leader who routinely rails against the “1 percent.” But in the age of Trump, where the hatred that normally drives what we’re told is the “tolerant” left has been turned up to 11. All standards have gone out the window; no hypocrisy is too great, no conspiracy theory too insane for someone on the left to advance it and its drone army to believe.

It must be easy to be a liberal in 2017. You don’t have to think for yourself. You don’t have to prove anything. And your life can swirl in a bubble where you’ll never have anything you say challenged in a serious way. Liberals have become the bad guy in Lethal Weapon 2 – their membership in the progressive club grants them a sort of diplomatic immunity from reality.

The same people who cheered the release of traitor Bradley Manning after serving only seven of 35 years for giving thousands of classified national security secrets to Wikileaks clutch their pearls to this day over the same website publishing unclassified emails from the Clinton campaign.

Is Wikileaks evil or righteous? Do they support the information it receives only if that information damages national security and puts American lives at risk? Sure seems like it.

When it comes to conspiracy theories, the left has become the Fox Mulder of politics. There is nothing beyond the pale or too insane to be advanced…as long as it is against a Republican. If it’s not, if it’s critical of the left, it’s dismissed as paranoia.

I’ve never written or spoken about the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich because, honestly, I haven’t seen anything but wild speculation about it. Was he the source of the DNC email leak to Wikileaks? I have no idea. If someone offers real proof, I’ll bite. Until then his death is just another senseless murder.

The lack of evidence hasn’t stopped some on the right from connecting dots that may or may not exist to advance a political agenda. But just because I tend to agree with a lot of the policy objectives the people connecting those dots want advocate not mean I’m on board with everything they do. If I’m disgusted when a Democrat does something, I’m disgusted when a Republican does it too. The same can’t be said for liberals.

Liberal journalists raged against the right over Rich both because there was a grieving family here and it’s distasteful to dredge up conspiracy theories in that circumstance, and because they are outraged a story has advanced for which there is no evidence. These are awful behaviors, but the left engages in them frequently and gleefully.

On the matter of advancing theories lacking proof, there isn’t a liberal publication that not only functions under the assumption Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to “steal” the election from Hillary Clinton, but prints stories and editorials alleging it on a regular basis.


It’s been almost a year and there is still zero evidence of this conspiracy, yet the Washington Post, New York Times, and every other left-wing birdcage liner has a team of reporters opining in their pages and on cable news about how this myth is fact.

Even Democratic members of Congress, who’d sacrifice their grandchildren to find a crumb of proof, have admitted there is none. It had to kill Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Congresswoman Maxine Waters to admit it, but they did. Journalists can’t.

Instead they run anonymously sourced stories, many of which are denied on the record by the very people implicated in them. They leave those stories, uncorrected, on their websites because the conspiracy must be true.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had to have threatened to resign if the president used his letter as justification for firing FBI Director James Comey; anonymous sources told them he did.

Never mind that Rosenstein personally, unambiguously denied the story. Liberals need it to be true. As such, the original story sits, uncorrected, on the Washington Post website without mention of Rosenstein’s unequivocal denial. It would be journalistic malpractice…if journalism still had standards.


The same goes for countless stories in which Casper the Friendly Leaker whispers something into the ear of some liberal reporter that fits the narrative so perfectly it snaps in place like the last Lego.

Comey was fired just after requesting more money for Russia probe? Obviously. It doesn’t matter that the acting Director of the FBI denied it under oath or that there is zero evidence; it just has to be true.

Someone is going to read you a couple of lines over the phone from a “dear diary” entry by Comey that claimed the president “hoped” the FBI would leave Michael Flynn alone? It doesn’t matter that you don’t know the context, or that Comey didn’t tell anyone at the time, or you weren’t even allowed to see the words on the page. Trump is corrupt, so it has to be true. And so on.

When it comes to love of anti-Trump-perfectly-fitting-the-left-wing-narrative conspiracy theories, facts just get in the way. Journalists are ready to roll around like a happy dog in the sun on the grassy knoll of news.


As for the idea that respect for the dead should dictate decorum, these credentialed degenerates stepped down from their high horses long enough to cheer the death of Fox News founder Roger Ailes. I don’t know how damaged someone has to be to write the things they wrote – thinking something sick is one thing; believing the world needs to know it is a disorder yet to be named – yet there they were, dancing on his grave before his family even had a chance to digest their loss.

You say someone is a monster and insensitive to the family for theorizing about a murder last summer, but you can’t wait for the body to get cold to express glee over someone’s passing because you didn’t like their politics? There’s a special place in hell for people like that.

Liberals, particularly journalists, have morphed into something very disturbing since the arrival of Donald Trump onto the political scene. They’ve achieved a new level of hypocrisy and disgusting cruelty that would shame a normal person.

Something deep inside them, at their core, is fundamentally damaged. Whether it was broken before the election or not is irrelevant, it’s their driving force now. Were they civilians, they’d likely be shouting at streetlights and losing the argument. Since they’re journalists, they’ll probably win a Pulitzer.

Link

I read this yesterday and have been pondering it. I think at the core of a liberal's M/O is immorality and the false principles required to square it with reality. I think there is some kernel of immorality that they will not acknowledge is wrong even if they have no intent to correct it. They'd rather believe it's not immoral and square it with piles and piles of false principles.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I read this yesterday and have been pondering it. I think at the core of a liberal's M/O is immorality and the false principles required to square it with reality. I think there is some kernel of immorality that they will not acknowledge is wrong even if they have no intent to correct it. They'd rather believe it's not immoral and square it with piles and piles of false principles.

In the course of reading the 11 volume "Complete Story of Civilization" by Will and Ariel Durant, I am struck by the variations in what has been accepted as "morals" from time to time and place to place. It has been OK to kill one's children, a duty to sacrifice them to the gods on some occasions, sell them into slavery, have sex as the spirit moved you, keep mistresses, concubines, male or female, kill, torture, maim, burn out eyes, chop limbs, castrate, keep slaves, massacre entire towns, kill the men, rape the women then kill them or keep them as slaves, as the mood struck you.

There doesn't seem to be any eternal recognised morals, merely those of the particular epoch. We may be transitioning to a new morality now.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I read this yesterday and have been pondering it. I think at the core of a liberal's M/O is immorality and the false principles required to square it with reality. I think there is some kernel of immorality that they will not acknowledge is wrong even if they have no intent to correct it. They'd rather believe it's not immoral and square it with piles and piles of false principles.

I think your statement greatly oversimplifies things. Yes there are immoral liberals, just as there are way too many immoral conservatives. But many, many liberals are well meaning people who genuinely want the best for their fellow man. They are just naive about the realities of what that means and what is required to achieve it.

As an example, my step-dad is a wonderful man, hard-working, full of integrity, kind and patient. He also voted twice for Obama and recently for Hillary. He wants, from the bottom of his heart, to help the less fortunate. The problem is, his worldview, shaped by a Mayberry-esque childhood, has a hard time accepting that the greatest kindness may not be a handout.

I think liberalism is, at its heart, a run from reality.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I read this yesterday and have been pondering it. I think at the core of a liberal's M/O is immorality and the false principles required to square it with reality. I think there is some kernel of immorality that they will not acknowledge is wrong even if they have no intent to correct it. They'd rather believe it's not immoral and square it with piles and piles of false principles.

In the course of reading the 11 volume "Complete Story of Civilization" by Will and Ariel Durant, I am struck by the variations in what has been accepted as "morals" from time to time and place to place. It has been OK to kill one's children, a duty to sacrifice them to the gods on some occasions, sell them into slavery, have sex as the spirit moved you, keep mistresses, concubines, male or female, kill, torture, maim, burn out eyes, chop limbs, castrate, keep slaves, massacre entire towns, kill the men, rape the women then kill them or keep them as slaves, as the mood struck you.

There doesn't seem to be any eternal recognised morals, merely those of the particular epoch. We may be transitioning to a new morality now.

We are transitioning for sure. But I believe there is a standard the our conscience dictates....at least initially. I think if we ignore that conscience enough, we lose the guidance it gives and then we are off to the immorality races. I think libs use false principles to suppress that conscience and once invested in false principles, pride prevents a correction to true principles.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I read this yesterday and have been pondering it. I think at the core of a liberal's M/O is immorality and the false principles required to square it with reality. I think there is some kernel of immorality that they will not acknowledge is wrong even if they have no intent to correct it. They'd rather believe it's not immoral and square it with piles and piles of false principles.

In the course of reading the 11 volume "Complete Story of Civilization" by Will and Ariel Durant, I am struck by the variations in what has been accepted as "morals" from time to time and place to place. It has been OK to kill one's children, a duty to sacrifice them to the gods on some occasions, sell them into slavery, have sex as the spirit moved you, keep mistresses, concubines, male or female, kill, torture, maim, burn out eyes, chop limbs, castrate, keep slaves, massacre entire towns, kill the men, rape the women then kill them or keep them as slaves, as the mood struck you.

There doesn't seem to be any eternal recognised morals, merely those of the particular epoch. We may be transitioning to a new morality now.

We are transitioning for sure. But I believe there is a standard the our conscience dictates....at least initially. I think if we ignore that conscience enough, we lose the guidance it gives and then we are off to the immorality races. I think libs use false principles to suppress that conscience and once invested in false principles, pride prevents a correction to true principles.

Ahh, well, the lesson of recorded history is that not everyone shares the conscience, and some don't have one.

In the old days, might made right, whether you were the Emperor, the Pope, the Sultan, or some minor princeling looking for the big chance. Now, more makes right.

quote:

Originally posted by jaaron11:
But many, many liberals are well meaning people who genuinely want the best for their fellow man. They are just naive about the realities of what that means and what is required to achieve it.

And I think you need to completely depart from reality to advocate that viewpoint. We have hundreds (if not thousands) of years of world history before us to prove unequivocally that what liberal/progressives advocate runs completely counter to basic human nature, and has never worked anywhere or at anytime throughout the annals of history. Yet these people still profess these views and positions. Sooooooo, completely discounting their feelings which are totally irrelevant, they suffer from one of two conditions. Either they are stupid beyond our ability to even grasp, or they suffer from severe mental illness that prevents them from living in reality. I've met liberals that fit in both categories, but I believe most belong to the second. Regardless, they are a danger to the future of this country.

I believe that liberalism is a mental defect

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
I believe that liberalism is a mental defect

I can assure you, they feel the same way about us. Perhaps in a few extreme cases it's true, but unlikely for most. Having a profoundly different opinion about politics does not make one crazy or stupid.

its NOT just about politics

its their entire reason for existence...

just how, in a capitalist society, did 50% of the population decide that Bernie is an honorable person on the right track, that Hillary Clinton was the ideal choice to be President...

there is just so much wrong with them that it can't be any thing else

and really, I don't give a flying fuck what moon-bat liberals think about us as far as I can tell, they're non-people

quote:

Having a profoundly different opinion about politics does not make one crazy or stupid.

Depends on your philosophy.
If it were only about an opinion.

Liberals want to control you (with more government), get your money and your vote to sustain themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
I believe that liberalism is a mental defect

I can assure you, they feel the same way about us. Perhaps in a few extreme cases it's true, but unlikely for most. Having a profoundly different opinion about politics does not make one crazy or stupid.

Their opinions about politics are the least of their issues. Their opinions about most everything are detached from reality, and that's not my opinion, that's fact backed up by evidence. When someone a liberal likes or supports is caught red handed doing something wrong or illegal, liberals still argue the person is innocent and/or the violation never happened, which is clear evidence of a mental defect. At least most conservatives I know, once the facts are in, are willing to not only accept the guilt of the accused, but actually condemn them for it. Or how about the belief by liberals that all people are equal, so therefore their outcomes should be equal (of course handled via government control). That's pure unadulterated insanity. We're all very different (i.e. not equal on almost any level), which if accepted, embraced, and built upon, makes are stronger. But of course that's insane theory to a liberal too.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I read this yesterday and have been pondering it. I think at the core of a liberal's M/O is immorality and the false principles required to square it with reality. I think there is some kernel of immorality that they will not acknowledge is wrong even if they have no intent to correct it. They'd rather believe it's not immoral and square it with piles and piles of false principles.

Yep.

You own yourself and the fruit of your own labor. It's that simple. It's immoral to take what you haven't earned just because you can, or you have power, or votes or it's not "fair" that someone else has more.

Collectivism, therefore is a belief that there are no individual property rights, that everything must be shared, and that it's OK to use force to redistribute or spread the wealth.

It is either their way or the highway.

I have one now back home that is acting as a "cookie lady" spreading all kinds of mojo.

When they can't get what they want, they will do things to get back at you. Like my truck having dog pee on the aluminum wheels numerous times, a post rotted off from the white stuff put on it, drain plug on truck loose and leaking, lug nuts on one wheel loose by 1 1/2 to 2 turns, tire pressure 40 psi instead of 65 on one tire, all four tires flat on the Buick in the back yard, etc.

The only consolation is that the person I think is involved is now 6 feet under.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Collectivism, therefore is a belief that there are no individual property rights, that everything must be shared, and that it's OK to use force to redistribute or spread the wealth.

Which has failed spectacularly every time its ever been tried. Yet liberals ignore that reality and continue down that path. If that's not undeniable evidence of a mental defect, I simply do not know what is.

quote:

Originally posted by jaaron11:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I read this yesterday and have been pondering it. I think at the core of a liberal's M/O is immorality and the false principles required to square it with reality. I think there is some kernel of immorality that they will not acknowledge is wrong even if they have no intent to correct it. They'd rather believe it's not immoral and square it with piles and piles of false principles.

I think your statement greatly oversimplifies things. Yes there are immoral liberals, just as there are way too many immoral conservatives. But many, many liberals are well meaning people who genuinely want the best for their fellow man. They are just naive about the realities of what that means and what is required to achieve it.

As an example, my step-dad is a wonderful man, hard-working, full of integrity, kind and patient. He also voted twice for Obama and recently for Hillary. He wants, from the bottom of his heart, to help the less fortunate. The problem is, his worldview, shaped by a Mayberry-esque childhood, has a hard time accepting that the greatest kindness may not be a handout.

I think liberalism is, at its heart, a run from reality.

Does he want to help with only the fruits of his own labor, or is he intent on using the fruits of others' labor in attaining his goals? Does he believe in government taking from one to give to another?

If the second case is so (which I suspect based on his voting pattern), he is not a man of integrity, nor is he kind, despite what you may state. Anyone that wants to take from me without just compensation is no better than a common thief.

My opinion.

My opinion is that same as bcereuss'.

I know several people who are exceptionally intelligent and financially successful but whose IQs drop 200 points at the mere mention of politics or a world view different than their own. Its absolute self induced stupidity. Reason and logic can't coexist with feel good, social justice morality, so they choose to sacrifice the former to feel superior about the later.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I read this yesterday and have been pondering it. I think at the core of a liberal's M/O is immorality and the false principles required to square it with reality. I think there is some kernel of immorality that they will not acknowledge is wrong even if they have no intent to correct it. They'd rather believe it's not immoral and square it with piles and piles of false principles.

Yep.

You own yourself and the fruit of your own labor. It's that simple. It's immoral to take what you haven't earned just because you can, or you have power, or votes or it's not "fair" that someone else has more.

Collectivism, therefore is a belief that there are no individual property rights, that everything must be shared, and that it's OK to use force to redistribute or spread the wealth.

Here Chellim has illustrated a good example of my premise. The immoral kernel is that one man may lay claim to what another has/has earned. The false principles used to square the immoral position are several and varied, but all concentrate on the urgency of need and the benefit for the many at the expense of a few. The damage is to all who are involved and those no where near the scene of the crime. The true principle is that if we are free and equal then all are entitled to the fruits and accumulation of our own individual labor. If we donate some to another, it is voluntary. In this principle there is prosperity, growth, liberty and equality.

Leftists/liberals refuse to accept true principles when they run contrary to their immoral code. This is not to say that other than Leftists/libsters are not immoral in some way or another. We are in various ways, but we at least admit true principles even if they are aspirational. Libs alter reality to fit distortions and impose that on others. This is what makes them fundamentally wrong. IMO

Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals "Think"
Evan Sayet
Delivered on March 5, 2007
"
...
I assume that just about everybody in this room agrees that the Democrats are wrong on just about every issue. Well, I'm here to propose to you that it's not "just about" every issue; it's quite literally every issue. And it's not just wrong; it's as wrong as wrong can be; it's 180 degrees from right; it is diametrically opposed to that which is good, right, and successful.

What I discovered is that this is not an accident. This is part of a philosophy that now dominates the whole of Western Europe and the Democratic Party today. I, like some others, call it Modern Liberalism. 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. .....
It's not just foreign policy; it's every policy......

So the question becomes: Why? How do they think they're making a better world? The first thing that comes into your mind when trying to under­stand, as I've so desperately tried to understand, is that if they side always with evil, then they must be evil. But we have a problem with that, don't we? We all know too many people who fit this category but who aren't evil: many of my lifelong friends, the people I grew up with, relatives, close relatives.

If they're not evil, then the next place your mind goes is that they must just be incredibly stupid. They don't mean to always side with evil, the failed and wrong; they just don't know what they're doing. But we have a problem with this as well. You can't say Bill Maher (my old boss) is a stupid man. You can't say Ward Churchill is a stupid man. You can't say all these academics are stupid people. Frankly, if it were just stupidity, they'd be right more often. What's the expression? "Even a broken clock is right twice a day," or "Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and again."

But if they're not stupid and they're not evil, what's their plan? How do they think they're making a better world .....

What I discovered is that the Modern Liberal looks back on 50,000 years, 100,000 years of human civilization, and knows only one thing for sure: that none of the ideas that mankind has come up with--none of the religions, none of the philos­ophies, none of the ideologies, none of the forms of government--have succeeded in creating a world devoid of war, poverty, crime, and injustice. So they're convinced that since all of these ideas of man have proved to be wrong, the real cause of war, pov­erty, crime, and injustice must be found--can only be found--in the attempt to be right.

If nobody ever thought they were right, what would we disagree about? If we didn't disagree, surely we wouldn't fight. If we didn't fight, of course we wouldn't go to war. Without war, there would be no poverty; without poverty, there would be no crime; without crime, there would be no injustice. It's a utopian vision, and all that's required to usher in this utopia is the rejection of all fact, reason, evi­dence, logic, truth, morality, and decency--all the tools that you and I use in our attempts to be better people, to make the world more right by trying to be right, by siding with right, by recognizing what is right and moving toward it.

.....
What you have is people who think that the best way to eliminate rational thought, the best way to eliminate the attempt to be right, is to work always to prove that right isn't right and to prove that wrong isn't wrong. .....

Obviously, this is not going to happen overnight. There are still going to be religions, but they are going to do their best to denigrate them. There are still going to be countries, but they will do what they can to give our national sovereignty to one-world bodies. In the meantime, everything that they teach in our schools, everything they make into movies, the messages of the movies, the TV shows, the newspaper stories that they pick and how they spin them have but one criterion for truth, beauty, honesty, etc., and that is: Does it tear down what is good and elevate what is evil? Does it tear down what is right and elevate what is wrong? Does it tear down the behaviors that lead to success and elevate the ones that lead to failure so that there is nothing left to believe in?"


More at http://www.heritage.org/politi...odern-liberals-think