Friday, July 20, 2007
Caught these on "Shrinkwrapped"...
"For a leftist whose sense of himself depends on being smarter and more caring than selfish and evil conservatives, when a leftist position fails, they are quite capable of shifting positions on the fly. For example when the Gorelick wall between foreign and domestic intelligence prevented us from discovering the 9/11 plotters, the inquisitors on the 9/11 panel had no problem attacking the Bush administration for failing to connect the dots they had prevented them from connecting. Note that 6 years post-9/11, the left is attempting to once again make it impossible to connect the dots by revealing secret terrorist screening programs, attempting to interfere with successful counter-terrorist intel collection, etc. You can be sure that if another attack succeeds, they will once again rail at those who failed to connect the dots.
there is an additional aspect of the pathology of the collectivists; it is such a deeply ingrained aspect of collectivism that it is barely noticeable until one looks for it. That is, the pervasive lack of empathy on the Left. The Left cares deeply about populations but not at all about individuals. Even worse, the Left cares deeply about populations only so long as they serve to advance the agenda of the left. (A classic example would be the Left's support of Israel when they were still victims and their intense antipathy to the state of Israel ever since the Israelis refused to remain victims.) People are merely objects whose existence serves to confirm the goodness and correctness of the Left.
From a previous post...
"In addition to externalizing blame for one's own pitiful situation in life, there is yet another advantage to paranoia and projection: often, a creative distortion of reality can reliably pump up one's own self-esteem. You are righteous, persecuting the true racists and you, yourself, are incapable of any racist thoughts or emotions. Sometimes, it pumps that self-esteem up at the expense of a great deal of fear; but nevertheless, it is comforting to know that someone appreciates your genius or the threat you represent. Clearly if the CIA, FBI, aliens, Jews , POTUS, Republicans [fill in your favorite bogeyman here] are out to get you, you must be special and unique."
Does "Get out of my computer you DOJ bitch" ring a bell?, Or perhaps "Republican hackers" locking people out of blogs?...
The Narcissist and the Borderline exhibit different aspects of damaged narcissism. Both, because of their own inability to experience another person as an independent creature with his own desires, lack empathic understanding of others. Other people are objects in the worst meaning of the term and much of the Borderline's and the Left's Pathology follows from this disconnect.
This is why the Dixie Chicks are "sweet girls" and Ted Nugent is a "chickenhawk", Or why hardworking people who outnumber and vote against you are "inbred rednecks" and all live in "trailerparks"...
It must be stated that there are plenty on the right who lack empathy; however, the Left's political philosophy structures this lack as an integral part of their politics. People are only important when they serve the collectivist function. It is no coincidence that conservative red staters give so much more Charity than liberal blue staters.
Collectivism represents the failure of empathy on the grandest scale; it allows and encourages the worst atrocities in the name of the collective, all the while enabling the Leftist to think of himself as a loving, caring, and good person."
And if you disagree with the collective, we'll just delete your post while calling you "Nazi's" and "Jackbooted thugs". Then we'll talk about how when "real Americans" take power, people like you will be imprisoned and shot or lynched.
But hey!, they are loving caring good people you know?
Sound like anyone we know?
"What this implies is a kind of merger, an inability for those on the left to see anyone as separate from a larger "structure" or "system" which they ideologically argue explains everything."
But, we ARE paid bloggers, right?
Who are we working for this week? The RNC?, Karl Rove?, Ann Coulter???
"Whenever I go to a website like Daily Kos I can feel the overwhelming heat of their anger at anyone who disagrees with them. Also many left leaning commenters on conservative blogs cannot conceal their bitter anger at Bush and anyone who supports him. The level of anger seems totally inappropriate for debate about foreign policy or even domestic policy. For all the angry cries about the loss of personal liberties, I have yet to see anyone come forward and offer a specific complaint.
The other thing that strikes me is that they are never outraged or angry about the barbaric acts of the Islamists. Videotaped beheadings, using children as shields, bombing markets or places of worship, exploding chemical bombs, and other such acts just don't seem to faze the left. But let there be a whiff of an act of brutality by our side and the anger comes out almost as virulently and predictably as the Arab street.
Why would they be angry with their brothers in arms? The reason that Islamists don't care about killing their own "peaceful" men, women and children is because the ONE thing Allah hates most is a muslim who will not Jihad.
Similarly, the ONE thing the smarter than everyone else "intellectuals" on the left hate is an American who will not acknowledge their superiority. And make no mistake, if they thought they would get away with it, they'd kill those who disagree too. Just read their posts about what they THINK ought to be done with those who disagree...hangings, firing squads, all after a "fair trial" of course"
For people who are under attack by a stateless group of terrorists it seems very strange that they show little anger at the terrorists who would slit their throats without a moments hesitation. Yet they go into paroxysms of anger at the slightest rumor of brutality by the very people who are defending them."
Ouch! that's gonna leave a mark!
What really fascinates me is how we're always told about how awful the "hatespeech" is on the right. Of course it's just as bad (or worse) on the left, but they're not "hateful", just telling the "truth".
For further enlightenment check out "Shrinkwrapped" on the blogroll...
Monday, July 9, 2007
Pardon me, I know that this shouldn't be about another blog, but this screed is so ignorant on so many levels, and reflects the liberal mindset so well I just had to dissect it.
This is Worfs triumphant return after a about a months sabbatical...
"When torture is outlawed..."
I was reading comments in an online blog recently and I came across a comment by a conservative commenter in a thread about the 50 Presidential Scholar children who handed Bush a letter asking him to stop torturing. The comment was as follows."
"When torture is outlawed, only outlaws will use torture!"
-Would a Conservative ACTUALLY say something this stupid? Or was it a liberal being sarcastic?
"We all have seen this quote before. Its a favorite of the RNC and the NRA for defending gun ownership rights and bumperstickers bearing these words adorn pickups throughout the south."
-Liberal elitism. Worfy just loves rolling in that, he likes to fling around terms like "inbred", "redneck" and "trailerpark", but wait, aren't "rednecks" and people who live in "trailerparks" Americans too?, Oh well second rate ones with Worf and the liberals I suppose.
"But what kind of logic really exists in that tired slogan, particularly when applied to torture?"
-Uh, that would be NONE when applied to "torture".
"That slogan leaves many questions, ..."
-Only to the "nuanced" left evidently...
"as does the act of torture itself."
-Brace yourself, he really goes off the deep end here:
"For example, by that exact same logic, why bother to outlaw raping children?
After all, if raping children is outlawed, only outlaws will rape children.
Or why bother outlawing bank robbery?
After all, if robbing banks is outlawed, only outlaws will rob banks.
And why bother outlawing car jacking?
After all, if car jacking is outlawed, only outlaws will jack cars."
-Yes, and since MURDER is already outlawed, only outlaws commit murder.
And this invalidates the NRA's slogan how exactly?
Only a liberal could equate an inanimate object with a personal action.
(This is reminiscent of how they hate big gas guzzlers, so whenever the media reports an accident or a crime involving a SUV it's always "An SUV killed someone today", like it couldn't have somehow been the driver maybe?)
"Or perhaps is it possible, just possible, that there are some moral absolutes? Could it be things like, raping children and beating pregnant women with tire irons, ..."
-Is he getting to a glimmer of truth here?, no it's Worf remember.
"and torturing our fellow man, are just morally wrong, under any circumstances?"
-Torture wrong "under ANY circumstances"? What if we know for a fact that he's an evil son of a bitch who has committed many attrocities and is about to commit another?
"I’m fully aware of the old tired RNC argument that “what if someone had information that would save 10,000 lives from being killed, is torture worth it then?”."
-I'd say YES!
"Well, in the same vein I ask, what if that same person had information that would save 10,000 lives from being killed, and the terrorist wouldn’t break under torture, but he offers to provide it if you let him rape a 6 year old girl."
-Notice he has to bring in an innocent and uninvolved third party to try to make his thesis work, everyone knows that unless you're talking about Mohammed, torture and the rape of children are two entirely different things. (execpt for the children, to whom that WOULD be torture...)
"Would you do that?"
-Uh, NO! we're TORTURING him, not helping him get his rocks off, or allowing him to torture someone else much less an innocent 6 year old.
"Would it be “worth it”, to let a 6 year old girl be raped mercilessly while you watch, so that 10,000 Americans could keep from dying today, instead of sometime down the road? And if so I ask, what kind of people are these 10,000, who would be ok with living longer if a 6 year old girl had to be raped to do it? What sort of person would be ok living under those circumstances?"
-Gee Worf, this is a pretty safe statement to make, after all what sane person could live with themselves? What OBVIOUSLY warped segment of society would be OK with this?
"Are such lives worthy of being spared?"
-As I've said, NO.
"And if so, is the guy your torturing the right guy?"
-I said, "If we know for a fact..."
"Is he a terrorist or an innocent college student with the same name?"
-This "innocent college student" wants to rape a 6 year old girl why?
"Will he tell you the truth, or just tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear that will make him stop hurting you?"
-He'll tell the truth eventually when he knows we're going to check it out before letting him go back to his cell.
"Will the information he has be valid, or will he be missing a peice of the puzzle?"
-He better hope it's valid.
"Will you be competent and capable enough to stop it even if he does give you correct information, or will the event play out before your impotent eyes?"
-We'll probably stop some, and some we may not. And the ones we stop are worth it.
"Is torturing helpless human beings the only way Americans can survive now?"
-No, and it's not the ONLY method we use.
"Is tortuing helpless human beings what Americans are about?"
-From watching TV I think Americans are about stopping ACNE.
Of course not stupid, but if one small thing helps our police and military it should be part of the arsenal.
"50 Presidential Scholars who met with Mr Bush as a reward for their scholastic acheivements, asked and answered these questions for Mr Bush last week. He didn't get it."
-Yes he did. I believe he replied, "we don't torture". And we don't. We DO however do "coerced interrogations" and the CIA and NSA and the military say it works.
Also, the IQ's of these children are irrelevant. While they MAY be intelligent they have yet to gain real world and life experience.
"How we, as a country answer these questions, will determine who we are, and more importantly, who we are not."
-More self aggrandizing tripe. This from one of the same people who claim we SHOULD be in Darfur to stop the genocide. Iraq was just as bad and we are THERE now. The difference you ask? Simple. Currently we have no national interest in Darfur, and our military is only supposed to be used to protect national interests.
Currently the only good war to a liberal is one in which we have no national interests in being in.
(nevertheless, we may yet go to Darfur, and if we do, what do you want to bet they'll still be screaming about invading "sovereign nations" and "not a threat to us"?)
See, Worfy and his brethren in the church of constant preaching and whiny stompy feet, like to point out the atrocities that happen during our presence while completely ignoring the atrocities that happen during our absence.
Can you imagine these people meeting their maker? He'll ask why they stood by and did nothing while his children were dying in remote parts of the world, and they'll say, "Hey, my hands are clean".
Click here to hear the scholars tell the story.
(If you really care)
Click here to hear what Keith Olberman had to say about the 50 scholars
posted by WORFEUS THE BLIND SEER at 1:03 PM |