Friday, April 06, 2007

Peter Jennings and Chris Matthews

To understand the mindset of the Modern Liberal and why it is he will invariably and inevitably side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success, let’s take the beliefs of two of the top leftist “journalists” of recent times.

When Peter Jennings, not long ago one of only three monolithic New York City newsmen charged with informing the public about the goings on around the globe, died recently, his colleague, Barbara Walters could think of no better way to eulogize him than to say “what made Peter great was that he knew there was no such thing as the truth.”

This, of course, leaves one to wonder just what, exactly, Jennings was reporting every night. If, as his colleague of thirty years claims, he didn’t believe truth existed, what was the criterion he employed in choosing the stories he would report and the way in which he would spin them?

The answer is that, since Jennings’ job is to report the truth – and, to him, the truth is that there is no such thing as the truth – Jennings’ sole job is to manipulate the evidence in his reports to undermine the beliefs of others by championing those things society recognizes as evil, wrong and failed and by tearing down that which the people recognize as good, right and successful.

This, of course, sees the Modern Liberal like Jennings (and Walters, apparently, since she thought not believing in the truth was the single quality that made her friend “great”) manipulate the evidence – Michael Moore it, if you will – for no other purpose than to disabuse others of their belief in the truth.

Since the vast majority of Americans believe America to be good, then, it becomes the very job of people like Jennings to “prove” that that belief isn’t founded in truth by focusing only on the misdeeds, the short-comings and the set-backs America and Americans suffer. Similarly, since most Americans believe that the word of Jesus Christ is the truth, Jennings’ job is nothing other than to cherry-pick, spin and manipulate the evidence – to do whatever is necessary to do his job well – to “prove” that this belief is misguided.

Since “there’s no such thing as the truth,” then, Jennings (et al) are not rooted to fact and evidence, and lying does not bother them one bit. After all, in a world where there is no truth, what is a “lie,” anyway?

Consider a speech given recently by leftist newsman Chris Matthews of the TV show “Hardball,” to the children at the University of Toronto. Being a Modern Liberal Matthews began his talk by telling the children that the Islamic fascists “aren’t evil” (they simply have “another way of looking at things.”)

But Matthews has a problem, assuming he has the slightest bit of human decency and recognizes that the cold-blooded mass murder of innocent people – be they the thousands on 9/11 or the children in kindergartens in Russia and Israel – is an evil act, how does he gibe his two positions? How does he explain people who “aren’t evil,” committing such heinous crimes in so many places around the globe?

The answer is that Matthews has to – simply has to – find, invent and distort any and all wrongs done to the murderers for, while cold-blooded mass murder is evil, “justifiable homicide” isn’t even a crime. In fact, justifiable homicide might even be considered an act of heroism in just the way so many on the left consider the terrorists to be heroes and “freedom fighters.”

Yet it is not enough for Mathews to simply fabricate or exaggerate misdeeds America or Americans may have done, just as it is not enough to justify shooting someone simply because they broke into your home. If the burglar is stealing your stereo and running out the door and you shoot him, you have committed a crime. The only way for this not to be a crime is if the criminal is attacking you or your children, raping your wife, or strangling your mother.

Thus, in order to justify the violence of the Arab/Islamic world, the Modern Liberal like Matthews cannot simply point to minor misdeeds or wrongs America or Americans may have committed, but he needs to then exaggerate those wrongs to the point where they equal the evil visited upon the innocent.

Thus Ward Churchill, another powerful Modern Liberal, had no choice – simply no choice – but to call the innocent victims of 9/11 all “little Eichmanns,” for, since the terrorists had created a miniature holocaust (lower case “h” as in an all-encompassing and hellish fire), the only way the Modern Liberal could justify these murders and “prove” the terrorists “aren’t evil,” is by calling the victims miniature Eichmanns.

When Chris Matthews, then, or Peter Jennings or Barbara Walters and the rest of the leftist news media portray America as the ultimate in evil it is specifically because we are the greatest of good. These evils need to be invented and exaggerated merely to justify the vicious and evil attacks which the Modern Liberal has already decided – the day they entered kindergarten – cannot be the work of evil people.

This is exactly the same dynamic behind the Modern Liberals hatred of Israel. The Democrats have no choice but to call Israel “Nazis” not because they are but because the Arabs are. The Arabs/Moslems supported Hitler in World War II and after the war Nazis fled to Egypt and Syria and throughout the Arab world where they knew they’d be welcomed and feel at home.

The Nazis taught the Arabs/Moslems the “tricks” they now use against the Jews of Israel – not least of which is the messages taught to the “youth,” and the Nazi-style propaganda techniques employed in the government controlled Arab press. In order to justify the Nazi tactics employed by the Arabs and the Moslems, then, the Modern Liberal has no choice but to not only invent “wrongs” committed by the victims in Israel, but to elevate those wrongs to exactly the level of the evil that the Modern Liberal invariably and inevitably champions.


Me said...

If you care about the truth so much, it would behoove you to correct the multiple factual errors on your blog and your Heritage Foundation talk.

Just saying...

Ricky Raccoon said...

I loved your Heritage Foundation speech via YouTube.

I am a brand new Sayet fan…so I’m new to your blog and writing as well. I’m looking forward to going through the whole thing primed now by your speech.

If you haven’t been there already, you should visit Dr Bob Godwin’s blog:

You will find the smooth hum of sense production there very encouraging.

The author Godwin aka Gagdad Bob is a Psychoanalyst covering his beliefs in Metaphysics (Religion ~encompassing~ science, evolution - the whole Cosmos) or as he puts it ‘The Whole Existentialada’. Lots of funny there too, if you couldn't tell.

Incidentally, I am also a ‘Once Lib’. Never went back since the big move in 1990-ish. The steadily regressing Dem/Lib response to 9/11 and GWOT permanently sealed that door for good.

Dlanorrenrag said...

I enjoyed the article. I also note that present leadership in our executive branch is not as bad as would likely be provided under any alternative conjured by Democrats. But, neither party presently serves good sense.

Of Red Ass Moderates Vs. Loss Of Nerve Of Unholy Alliance:

Standing merely for license, lust, and/or loot, we will lose loyalty to defensible liberty.

To defend liberty, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion need not be to smother practical good sense with spuriously perfectionist choices of stories, slants of opinion, and spins of connotations.

Conspiring to foster terrorism need not be respected as being subsumed under licenses for perfectly free speech or practice of religion.

Respect need not be accorded to Unholy Alliances of institutions (ACLU, San Francisco Democrats, Global Business Republicans) bent upon undermining practical good sense.


Such alliance, if it hopes for globally based peace and prosperity, is premature. The longer it rules, the less defensible will Western ideals become.

The Alliance is premature because so much of the rest of the World is incited against it and the West is lacking in resolve or nerve to defeat the countering incitement.

Loss of nerve leads not to security, but to death --- likely both to body and spirit.

Unless moderates find enough “red ass” motivation to quell the Unholy Alliance of premature, politically correct, hypocritically perfectionist, globalistic multiculturalists of both the left and the right, we of the West, along with our ideals of democracy and liberty, may well be doomed to oblivion.

To childishly expect assimilation without standards or direction for assimilation is to expect Yin without Yang. When the West restores or finds within itself a defensible tradition or philosophy for defining practical, common, moral direction, it may more safely venture towards globalization.

Then, it may seek to provide standards for assimilation. Until then, throwing open our doors and borders in order to pander to all comers is merely to invite our own rape. For that, the leadership of the presently ruling Unholy Alliance is incredibly incompetent.

Time msy be nigh for trying to inspire a third political party. Would not a good name for it be “RED ASS MODERATES”?

A good start would be to fight against the maintenance of inassimilable cultural enclaves and so called “Sanctuary Cities” for illegal invaders.

Otherwise, we may well be kissing Western Liberty good bye.

bigwhitehat said...

Well put Evan.

I think the point about Jennings denying the existence of truth is poetic and appropriate this time of year.

Remember Pilot's question, "What is Truth?"

nanc said...

someone, please gag "me".

Me said...

Nanc, doesn't the Bible say something about turning the other cheek and loving your neighbor? Maybe you should go reread your favorite book before advocating "gagging" someone.

The hipocrisy is rank.

nanc said...

that is if you're willing to stay for the punishment, "me" - Yeshua did NOT turn the other cheek to judas, now, did he?

seems to "me" - meaning "you" are a little bitter over mr. sayet's popularity and want to rain on his parade?

your bitterness will kill only you, slowly.

Anonymous said...

What factual errors would those be, me? Sometimes a little more specificity leads to greater truth.

Anonymous said...

Or do you think Maher was telling the whole truth when he said that "religion is the antithesis of science". Do you believe it is? Do you know what antithesis means? I'm sure there is only a "single" difference between the science and religion. And is is only in that single respect, that it is science's antithesis.

Anonymous said...

...and by the way, the difference between the word impossible and improbable is not a thousand credibility points. The difference between zero and a mathematical function that "approaches" zero can be considered to be "statistically insignificant" in terms of credibility.

The mass of a photon being a case in point.

Anonymous said...

and if that's you complaint, that sayet is "lying" by the "mass of a photon"... perhaps you need to simply take a pill.

Anonymous said... for the antithesis of science, I don't think I can say what that is. But as for the antithesis of religion, I don't think I have to look much further than progressive liberalism...

Is progressive liberalism in any way, shape or form scientific? Not unless homosexuality is some kind of science.

nanc said...


Me said...

Farmer John, a few things.

(1) It appears that you have found my comments on Sayet's previous post, but for some reason, you have failed to comment on the factual inaccuracies that I have pointed out: Einstein's alleged religiosity, and the religious status of Brandeis University. Oh well. Just like Sayet, you seem to be ignoring facts that are inconvenient.

(2) "Progressive liberalism" is much more specific than "all liberals" that Sayet attacks in his video and his subsequent blog posts. The lack of precision is disheartening. This goes back to point (1) above as well. Not making basic factual errors and using more precise language would make Sayet more convincing. I'm sure he's aware of this, but is also aware that it would corrupt his whole thesis.

(3) I could expect no less than some sort of vague homophobia from some one like you, I suppose.

(4) Sayet says that the evolution of human beings is "impossible," or as you assert, so statistically improbable that it is damn near impossible. I personally don't know what I think is more improbable -- human evolution, or the existence of some sort of omnipotent superbeing that came out of nowhere.

(5) This takes me to my final point that I expressed on the other thread: modern secular humanist thought, what you would probably call "liberalism," has been evolving for hundreds of years, and its basic progression has been the application of critical rational thinking and analysis to an ever-increasing realm of things. When this realm finally expands to include god as well, the big contradiction between science and religion becomes readily apparent: if god is not exempt from rational scientific analysis, believing in something that has no evidence of existing seems unfounded. If he is exempt from rational analysis, then that is not fully rational analysis. Sayet seems to call this "tearing down everything that is good" -- I call it not longer accepting "just because" or "that is how our ancestors did it" as an explanation for ideas, thoughts, methods, etc.

Anonymous said...

1)Einstein's religiosity? What makes you doubt that? Some words from Einstein's mouth:

Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.

God does not play dice.

God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean.

I want to know all Gods thoughts; all the rest are just details.

It was the experience of mystery - even if mixed with fear - that engendered religion.

That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

And I don't know anything about Brandeis, so felt unqualified to comment. But if they were going to do more than name it after Einstein, well, the above speaks for itself.

2) Today's so-called American liberals ARE progressive liberals and her so-called American conservatives are classical liberals. You shouldn't complain when a man uses the language as it is commonly understood at the current point in time. But then, you require a precision of language to the mass of a photon. And I'm afraid only G_d knows that language. And it's a shame YOU don't practice it yourself.

3) You'll get no vague homophobia from me. You'll get a hatred of the practice of homosexuality though. For I don't fear them. I simply abhor them for practicing deliberate sterility and wallowing in their intemperance.

4) Then you agree with him. So what's the complaint?

5) Sayet is correct. Our concepts of G_d have been directly from rational constructions of the concept of "The Good". Have you never read Plato or studied his influence on the authors of the bible? And so modern "progressives" are still seeking to re-do what Plato has done. That is fine. But why do through experimentation what has already been achieved through rational thought?

6) It's obvious that all your charges come from your religious faith in progressive liberalism. And as I religious competitor, I find it disgusting that you would denounce other religions as unscientific. There is nothing at all scientific in progressive liberalism. And so you argue a straw man.

Anonymous said...

...and as for your disbelief in a Creator...get off your lazy *ss and go discover the "real reasons" why people like Einstein would believe in a G_d. If "just because" is insufficient an answer, and you require something more, then read Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, et al. Read Emerson if the others are above your intellectual capacity. But realize that not everyone has the capacity to derive G_d's existence from reason alone and must follow the traditions of their fathers and forefathers as proxy. In many ways, their survival to this day represents the outcome of a successful experiment, one that is much more demanding than science, for it buries ALL its' mistakes.

Anonymous said...

Just as it will bury today's modern non-reproducing homosexuals. Their genes will not be passed on.

Now doesn't homosexual monogamy through a manmade institution of marriage sound rather stupid when subjected to the light of "reason"?

Your religion is like that of the Shakers (abstinence). It only lasted a single generation.

Anonymous said...

Wonder how Jennings(if he were still alive) and Matthews feel about Rosie O'Donnell's claims that Americans need to go outside of the country to get 'real' news since the major news networks are controlled buy four corporations who are in cohoots with the WHite House?

Is Rosie calling Matthews a "Bushie controlled-by GE corporation" liar? Is she claiming that her weekly paycheck is being provided for by "Bushie controlled-by-Disney corporation liars?"

Some 'truth' me has.


Jim Wolfe said...

The nail's head for me was the reference to Imagine, which I have thought for some time holds the key to understanding today's Liberal. It replaces the Bible.

I hope to convince you that its championship of Second Amendment articulated rights makes the NRA an organization as worthy of support as the others shown on your home page. In the end, it may be that force is necessary to preserve the good from the forces of evil, and personal ownership of the tools of force may turn out to be our salvation, as it has several times already for the tiny nation of Israel.

Me said...

(1) First of all, I hope that Nanc chastises you for your "potty mouth."

(2) As for Einstein's religiosity, here are some quotes:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."

"My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."

(3) I've read Plato, and Aristotle, and beyond. And I've taken them apart, their flaws in logic, flaws in reasoning. St. Anslem included.

(4) I think you're quite wrong about liberalism surviving only one generation. First of all, it is not genetic, so it's not passed down through children. Second of all, it's existed for hundreds of years. I'm sure someone as erudite as yourself has heard of folks like Epicurus, Diderot, and Derrida, inter alia.

(5) Your homophobia. You probably think you're so clever with your retort about "fear" of homosexuals, but I'd urge to to check out the dictionary definition of homophobia: If you think that looking things up in dictionaries is some kind of trickery, let me remind you that conservative luminaries like Antonin Scalia love to quote dictionaries, and think that tasks like constitutional interpretation should be approaced with 2 things only: a dictionary and a copy of the consitution.

In any case, I don't know why you think it's any of your business -- the gender of the person someone chooses to sleep with. That's really all there is to it. I don't abhor various features of peopel's personal lives, even if i would never engage in those things myself, so I don't know why you abhor people's personal choices.

As for "sterility" and "intemperance," what you should be crusading against is heterosexual couples who don't reproduce, people like me and my significant other. That is, if it's "voluntary sterility" that you find so offensive.

(6) And as for my personal religious choices, again, I don't know where you go the idea that it's any of your business, or that you shoudl go around lecturing to people about their personal lives. I'm not telling you, with copious insults, that you should go and convert from your "disgusting" beliefs and points of view, am I? Not at all.

I could have written a lot more. But, one can't cover all bases.

PS I also live in sin. :D

Anonymous said...

1) She can chastise whosoever she likes.

2) What does it take, other than a belief in G_d, to be considered "religious". Einstein believed. He dedicated his entire life to discovering His laws. Is there any additional requirement?

3)What flaws? Please elaborate.

4) I really don't think we need to worry too much about competing with liberal states that institutionalize homosexuality or their surviving more than a generation. Just look at the declining population numbers in Europe. The only thing we need to worry about is institutionalizing the same error here.

5) Are you calling me a liar, too? You wouldn't be weighing photons again? And please, don't try and tell a Greek what homophobia means. You've invented a medical term and so expanded its application as to render it nearly meaningless.

I find it interesting that a mere thirty years ago, homosexuality was classified as a mental disease. And today, it is apparently heterosexuals who suffer from the mental disorder (homophobia). And sleep with whomever you like... just stop looking to the rest of society for institutional forms of approval and sanction. We like you to have to live in sin.

6) My, isn't the pot calling the kettle black. Isn't it due to your Christophobic intolerance of religious beliefs that you're here, complaining about "factual errors" and the corruption of truth. And isn't it evident that you have yet to substantiate a single charge?

7) "The criterion of truth resides in the enhancement of the feeling of power." I take it that you would agree with Nietzsche in this regard? So what makes you think we'd accept your truth? For as Plato said, "no man of sense will like to put himself or the education of his mind in the power of names: neither will he so far trust names or the makers of names as to be confident in any knowledge which condemns himself and other existences to an unhealthy state of unreality".

Now you can turn the above around and use it against me if you'd like. Only I'm not the one trying to institutionalize social extinction.

But then, you're so much more "scientific" than a religious person. < /sarcasm>

Me said...

(1) It would be hypocritical of her to only chastise "lefties."

(2) Einstein already told you -- he doesn't believe in a personal god who cares about your sins.

(4) You'd think that if homosexuals don't reproduce, there would no longer be any homosexuals. Human beings have been reproducing for thousands of years. So have other species that exhibit homosexual tendencies (sheep, mice, etc). So you'd think that through sheer natural selection, there would be no more homosexuals. Yet there are. Homosexuality in humanity, whether institutionalized or not, has been around for thousands of years as well. As a Greek person, you should know that. (Though I have to point out that modern Greece has very little to do with the culture of ancient Greece. I don't know if you've ever been, but it's a pretty Greek Orthodox Christian country now). Also, surely you're not arguing that the declining population numbers in Europe are due to homosexuality. For starters, homosexuals make up, even by the most generous estimates, only 10% of the population.

(5) I'm not calling you a liar. In any case, "homophobia" is not a medical term, so any arguments you have based on that contention are pointless.

As for "living in sin," i was just making fun. I don't think i'm living in sin, and neither does the rest of society, more or less. None of my peers, none of my family, none of my boyfriend's family think our cohabitation is a problem. Soceity is moving ahead, and people with your beliefs are being left behind. See Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court case regarding sodomy laws.

(6) When you write, "your Christophobic intolerance of religious beliefs that you're here, complaining about "factual errors" and the corruption of truth," you may be on point regarding some liberals, but not me. I don't want to impose my beliefs on you, but I dont want you to impose your beliefs on me. If you want to be Christian and believe whatever you believe, be my guest, just make sure that you don't try to tell me what to believe in, or impose your arbitrary standards on me. I'm all about individual human choice when it comes to beliefs -- if you choose Christianity or Islam or Buddhism or Judaism or atheism, it's all fine by me.

(7) "Only I'm not the one trying to institutionalize social extinction." Do you approve of married couples who choose not to have children? Because, as I said above, homosexuals are only 10% of the population, so "social extinction" is the fault of people like me, who simply don't want to have kids, and who are more interested in other pursuits, intellectual, hedonistic and otherwise.

katie said...

I am now a confirmed fan and will not only figure out a way to get that transcript from the Heritage Foundation, but assign it to my students to read for our critical thinking course. Thank you!

Al said...

Is there anything more pathetic than the arrogance of those who so stridently declaim against the existence of objective "truth"?

They're so sure of themselves and their sophisticated view of reality (oops, "reality" implies "non-reality," "true," and "false"), that they seem to regard every sentence from their own mouths as rife with a sort of non-truthy truth. No preacher I know of packs more truth claims into a five minute slot than most of our media celebrities waxing eloquent on the critical role of the press (but if no "truth", how can the press be in any way important?) and the criticality of their freedom to report whatever they want in any way they want whenever they want.

They sneer at the truth claims and moral stances of "the religious right" with supreme confidence in the "truth" of their own moral superiority. They practically glisten with the oil of their self-anointed self-righteousness.

Anonymous said...

1) Not if she knows them. Besides, I wasn't addressing her, I was addressing you. You seem to think you have a right to equal treatment. I'm here to tell you that I don't have to give it to you. With me, you have to earn it.

2) Neither do I, but that doesn't make me any less religious.

3) Avoidance?

4) Homosexuality was never before institutionalized to be monogamous and exclusively homosexual. You will go extinct... at least...the part attributable to genetics and nature and not nurture. The nurture part will slowly fade too, though, with the nature part gone. And no, it's not only their homosexuality that's affecting their birth rate. It's the crisis of confidence in preserving their own values and opposing "cultural imbecility's" like homosexual marriage. Liberalism can only progress so far until it ceases to be liberal and becomes instead, a mutual suicide pact.

5) Phobia is not a medical term? Doesn't it imply a medical diagnosis, that fear is cause... And I don't hate homosexuals because I fear them. I hate them because they are deliberately causing this crisis of confidence in values that is leading to western extinction.

And of course, I don't care what progressive liberals on the road to self-extinction think. I only care what my own kids think. And of course I tell them, gays and cohabitating sexually actives are living in sin. It thereby becomes something they learn to avoid, not emulate.

6) Then you won't mind living in world surrounded my rapists and murderers. Who are you to tell them what is right and wrong, correct? Who are you to impose your non-violent prejudices on their propensity towards violence. And who am I to tell a man who is committing cultural suicide to stop?

Besides, I have an obligation to impose my values on you by law. It isn't my religion that forces me to do this. It's the laws of liberal secular humanists like yourself that I live amongst in this institution called democracy that forces me to keep you from forcing me to do what you say (tyranny of the majority).

7) I approve of married people who can't have children. I think people who marry and deliberately don't have children are fools. But I can't effectly legislate against that stupidity, can I? Oh, that's right, I can. I can ban homosexual marriage. It doesn't cure the whole problem, but it doesn't hurt.

Me said...

Farmer John, do you watch the Simpsons? There's a moment when Homer says to Apu, an Indian-American, "C'mon, Apu. Come to our Civil War reenactment, we need some Indians to kill," to which Apu replies, "I don't know what part of your sentence to correct first." That is kind of how I feel about your stated opinions.

I don't know if you've ever been to Europe, but people many, not all, European countries are very liberal. They are not opposed to what you call "imbecility's" like same-sex marriage. (by the way, i have to inform you that gay people have been marrying people of the opposite sex for hundreds of years. the innovation is that marriage is same-sex, not that the participants are gay). People in Belgium, Denmark, France, the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and many others, overwhelmingly favor same-sex marriagae or civil unions.

As for phobia, not it's not always a medical term. For example, Francophobia is obviously not a medical term.

Regarding your children, woudln't you rather let them form their own opinions, instead of ramming down their throat your own particular morality? They are independent minds, not little mini-mes for you to control and sculpt to your liking. IMHO.

Regarding your "murderers and rapists" so-called "argument," this is really much too simplistic to even respond to at length. Surely you've heard the old adage "your freedom to do whatever you want stops at my face" or something along those lines.

I don't know why you're obsessed with same-sex marriage. What exactly is your goal, getting all the gay people to marry opposite-sex partners so they can reproduce to prevent "western extinction"? You've heard of Ted Haggard. That doesn't always happen, but it does quite often. why burden an otherwise moral and happy woman or man with a closeted gay partner? This will cause everyone much unhappiness, including the children.

In any case, I thought you were someone who is within the mainstream, but once we start talking about "hating gays" and "western extinction," I think it's my time to leave this debate. At some threshold, people simply say, "go on your merry way, there is no way i will change your extreme points of view, they are simply too extreme." My only consolation is that fortunately, most people do not hold these kinds of intolerant, antiquated, arbitrary beliefs.

Anonymous said...

"Let your children form their own opinions." You haven't a clue. And you think my opinions need correcting? LOL!

Good riddance.

Anonymous said...

Me, I prefer Camilia Paglia's response to gay activists...they have forgotten what is the purpose of the sex organs and because of this that their rage is rather on the level of dostoievskian anarachy.

My question to Me is if gay activists (not the same as homosexuals who quite frankly are over the rainbow and want their private lives back) don't want nosy in their bedrooms why then use mega million watt bullhorns announcing their activities?

I got the gay point made decades ago...they're here, they're queer and frankly I don't care anymore.
Get your bedroom out of my face.

Me said...

Anonymous, in short, the response is that because there are still people like Farmer John around who seem to care about who people sleep with, and want to discriminate against gays.

Anyway, he probably thinks that Jews control all the banks and media, so why would he listen to me?!

Anonymous said...

Well said, Evan. I love reading your blog. I visit it daily just to see if you've written anything new. I know you're working on your book but it'd be great if you could write more than you have been.

Brian said...

When in Rome . . .

Brian said...

Hm. Long links are a problem here. Try this:

Anonymous said...

“What made Peter great was that he knew there was no such thing as the truth.” ...I wonder if what Barbara Walters said here was meant to be taken as truth. If so, then what does that say about Peter Jennings' greatness? ...Can anyone say "self-refuting?"

Anonymous said...

BabaWawa is an idiot, isn't she?

And me's commitment to non-discrimination is so strong that the next homosexual serial child molester released from prison will automatically be granted babysitting privledges at her house.

There can be NO exceptions! Every liberal principle must be ABSOLUTE and INVIOLABLE! If it were other wise, it would be hypocritical!

Anonymous said...

...and if her children have sex with their babysitter, well, I guess it was simply their choice.

Anonymous said...

...and to demonstrate my equal commitment to religious virtue and lack of homophobia, I hereby promise to allow all my future children to be Catholic altar boys.

William Hamilton said...

Dear Farmer John,
Trust forgiving a wee bit off topic, I cannot help noticing Your choice of Fighting vessel.
May you be Sir, a descendent of The legendary father of my Continental Navy, Dear Captain JPJ himself?

But seriously, you may be interested in this:
BHR Expedition

tamar said...

I would be interested in interviewing you for Israel National Radio. I couldn't find your email or contact info, so am leaving a message here. Please contact me at:
(so i don't receive junk mail, I will write it with spaces, but please eliminate all spaces when writing the address) tamar @ israel national

thank you.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Hamilton,

Thank you Sir, for your kind interest but I must sadly report that I am in no way related to your dear Continetal Navy's Captain. And much like the BHR, this is but a temporary Fighting vessel, one which I must all too soon abandon once Providence provides a more suitable Prize.

I trust we will both soon Happily Learn the BHR Exedition's successful outcome.

Regards from a Fellow Son of Neptune,

-Farmer John (Fabius)

Anonymous said...

"Jim Wolfe said...

The nail's head for me was the reference to Imagine, which I have thought for some time holds the key to understanding today's Liberal. It replaces the Bible."

Interresting observation, J.W. If you don't mind, consider this . . .

John Lennon chants over and over, "Imagine there is no G-d."

And, one day He gets tired of listening, so G-d says, "Imagine no John Lennon."

Guess Who wins, . . . every single time.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Sayet, your thesis is fascinating, and has more than just a ring of truth to it. I have to think about it some more to see if it makes as much sense tomorrow as it does today. But, regardless of whether you've hit the bullseye, or not, I think you are still at least VERY close.

True, your description of why they do what the do seems irrational. But, what they are doing makes absolutely no sense, so it would require a seemingly irrational explaination to account for it. The question is, are your ideas crazy enough. I think they may very well be.


Oh, yes, is there another source of your Heritage Foundation talk? For some reason my aging computer can't deal with the newer videos.

yonason said...

I met one of Ward Churchill's, “little Eichmanns,” who survived 9/11.

In the process of escaping the building he helped a coworker who had sometime earlier almost gotten him fired. Still, he risked his life, and survived by mere seconds, in part BECAUSE he selflessly helped this person who had massive burns on much of her body. And she is also alive today because of him.

It is Ward Churchill, and Chris Mathews and and their little Leftist Nazi ilk who are the lying "Eichmanns," as is clear to any sane thoughtful person.

MoleOnABull said...

Anon says...
John Lennon chants over and over, "Imagine there is no G-d."

And, one day He gets tired of listening, so G-d says, "Imagine no John Lennon."

Guess Who wins, . . . every single time.

Awesome! Ha ha, I love it! Great point.

First post here, btw...

Sayet, you rock!!! Keep doing what you're doing... forget the detractors.

Me said...

I hadn't even noticed farmer john's ridiculousness here on this blog. Equating homosexuality with child molestation? Again, next you're going to tell me that the earth is flat? Really, FJ, you need to rethink some of your opinions, lest you keep embarrassing yourself.

Anonymous said...

Yes, homosexuality has nothing, nothing at all to do with sex and child molesters never have sex with their victims. And all you who thought otherwise, well, you're simply being ridiculous...


Me said...

Oh, c'mon, FJ, you're not really this stupid, are you? Most child molesters are heterosexual.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that they are. Does that mean that most homosexuals are child molesters? No, obviously not. Does that mean we should hold this against all homosexuals? AGain, obviously not. I can't believe I have to explain this to a grown man.

Most rapists are men. Are most men rapists, then? No. Should we hold this against all men? No. There are many other examples.

And no, i wouldn't let a child molester be a babysitter for my child. But it wouldn't depend on his or her sexual orientation. I would be discriminating on criminal conviction, not sexuality.

What i'm against is discriminating against people on the basis of their sexuality.

Again. Stop embarassing yourself by opening your mouth.

Me said...

The 3rd sentence was supposed to be "But let's assume for a second that most child molesters are homosexual."

Anonymous said...

Compared to heterosexual males, homosexuals ARE much more likely to be child molesters: An excerpt:

The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.

So if we split the population into two group, one straight the other gay and randomly select a babysitter... chances are much better if we select from the heterosexual group of NOT getting a child molester.

If you ever figure out the difference between your *ss and a hole in the ground, "me"...please let me know.

Me said...

FJ, why so hostile?

Look, you're quoting the family research council, which is not in the least an objective resource. They connect disparate statistics in a stupid way, statistics that aren't even correct. Send me a link from someone reputable and maybe, MAYBE, i'll tak you seriously.

I mean, did you actually look at the link you sent? Doesn't that look like a convincing, impartial, established trusted website? LOL.

If you want to believe your own lies, be my guest. But please don't try to spread your idiocy to others.

Anonymous said...

Why am I hostile to you? Because you have yet to substantiate a single statement you have ever made either in this forum or anywhere else. You're here to criticize and obsfucate, and haven't the slightest intention of conducting any serious inquiry into the truth of any matter under discussion. You're here to criticize, "raise objections" and feign offense. You are, for lack of a better term, a troll. And I don't particularly care if you take me "seriously" or not, because as you can see, I don't take you seriously at all.

So, me, getting back to this joke of a discussion we're having, maybe you could provide me with a list of so-called objective **snicker-snicker** web sites that I'm permitted to quote from in whatever future discussions we have. In the absence of your list of off-limits and/or biased sites, I intend to ignore your complaints as to the "objectivity" of my sources. The source cited was very well sourced and presented. So I can see why it might "frightened" you.

And I didn't know that the FRC had been recently classified as a non-credible hate site by the Internet objectivity certification police and that all the "credible" research these days must be done by progressive entities like the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) (who stupidly complain that the Bush Administration "politicizes" science) or the National Organization for Women (NOW).

How many studies have the UCS or NOW done on the link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse? Zero. Why? No objective findings demonstrating the pathological bahaviours of homosexuals would fit into their political agenda.

And as for spreading my idiocy to others, I'd stop if I could ever trust you to do likewise. But since I can't, I've made it my mission in life to 'f with left wing trolls like yourself.

btw - Is global warming a "fact" or a merely "theory"? Algore says there's a consensus opinion among experts on the subject. I'll go along with him so far as to say there's an "opinion" all right.

Me said...

"I've made it my mission in life to 'f with left wing trolls like yourself."

Wow, that's a pretty sad mission. I kinda feel sorry for you, especially considering you're a grown man who can't even bring himself to type out "fuck."

Anonymous said...

I can, but mostly chose not to. Obviously propriety is not one of your fortes.

Me said...

Well, FJ, i could go into a whole symbiotic discussion about how when you type "a**" instead of "ass" or "eff" or "f" instead of "fuck," you're still using the word, just cowardly hiding behind some asterisks. So, it's not really any more proper to type it with some dashes or asterisks -- you're still conveying the word and its meaning to your reader. So you're not exactly a paragon of propriety yourself. Propriety would dictate refraining from using those words completely, rather than just not typing them out, in a childish, "it's a BAD WORD," way.

I mean really, you use these words, and you think that just becaue you put some asterisks in them, I'm going to be all polite and "proper" to you? On what grounds do you base this crazy idea?

Me said...

excuse me, that should have been "semiotic" instead of "symbiotic."

Anonymous said...

Nope. Cuss all you like. Just don't expect that just becuase you have no standards, that everyone has to follow your example.

Me said...

But my friend, it's not even me who's "cussing"! It's you, cussing with asteriks. I haven't cussed at all, i was just discussing a word, I didn't address it to you, or as any kind of descriptor.

Anonymous said...

I simply typed 'f. It was you who chose to interpret it as a four letter word and supply the other 3, so don't drag me into the mud with you on that. As for calling you an *ss, if the label fits...

Me said...

Oh you weasely weasely coward-man. Not even man enough to admit that, once again, you're being inconsistent and I've caught you red-handed.

Pathetic. That's probably the reason you went into the Marines or Navy or whatever, to make up for your lack of manliness, to prove to yourself that you're a man's man. And yet you still don't have enough of an inner core to be able to admit you were wrong. I'm sad for you.

Anonymous said...

me so :( 4u

Anonymous said...

So if I type the word G_d... have I used it? And so, how am I being inconsistent?

Anonymous said...

As much as I would like to dissagree with 'me' on this one, he has a valid point. Leaving out the final letters of a widly used and well known curse word is a photon's mass from simply saying it all.
Pick one side, right or wrong, us it or don't.

vorpal blade said...

farmer john... i was actually TRYING to follow you, until you got to the point of denying that you intended to say (the obvious) by typing the initial. really unfortunate. and the name-calling... is that a navy thing? beyond sad. pathetic, really.