Comments on: Letterman: Another Intolerant Robot for the Left

By: Challenger Grim

Challenger Grim — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:05:52 +0000

(I would email this to the author himself but don't know how to contact him)

Brian, sir, I don't think it's the thought police of the Left, but their paradigm. Let me explain.
You don't have to search long until you come across liberals calling themselves "reality-based".

Example:
http://mightygodking.com/index.php/2009/04/01/hey...

Some stuff in that article was not accurate, so I called them out on it. Called them mostly out on the factual inaccuracies. The responses?

Challenger Grim, I don’t have the foggiest idea why you would choose to defend the odious smear of fecal remnants that is Glenn Beck, but it is as obvious to me as the rising sun that in defending someone like that, you have obviously lost touch with what the rest of us call reality. Time to lay of the hallucinogens.

Of course, Letterman is just another example. Thus, all liberal reactions can be explained:

To them, a lot of beliefs (Keyensian economics is but one example) are as indisputably true as the sum of 2+2 or the law of gravity that things fall down.

However, they are then confronted by people which do not think as they do ("others"). So they are shocked, as shocked as you might be if someone said they disagree as to the sum of 2+2 or that stuff falls down.

Therefore, the liberal mind has to come up with a rationalization. Probably one or all of the following:

1. Some subset of humanity are always crazy and insane. Therefore, these 'others' are a part of that small minority of people, and thus liberals are a part of the majority.
2. If confronted by a large enough set of people, such that they can't rationalize that THAT many people are mad, then they theorize that they are just stupid then. After all, you don't hold it against a baby for not understanding 2+2 or gravity.
3. Then what happens when you see some of that group which have clearly heard about "the truth" but still refuse to believe? Then obviously they must be maliciously evil and/or greedy, using the stupidity of the sheep to enrich or empower themselves.

Hence, Letterman and others.

Of course, the possible logical theorum that maybe their beliefs are not OBJECTIVELY right (forget even that they might be wrong) never occurs to them.

By: ultra

ultra — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 04:30:39 +0000

Letterman, what a tool. Hollywood just plain sucks!!!!!!! No talent no class.

By: Phineas

Phineas — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 01:54:18 +0000

They don't call it "The God That Failed" for nothing….

By: Jamesb

Jamesb — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 18:09:25 +0000

He's riden that ugly gap in his teeth to millions, he certainly isn't funny.

By: Jamesb

Jamesb — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 18:08:39 +0000

Ya, Psychotic is the 51st….

By: John the Libertarian

John the Libertarian — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:49:14 +0000

Obviously another thin-skinned useless Canadian. The man apologized. Get over it, dickhead.

By: tom macgill

tom macgill — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 05:56:06 +0000

u watching a guy who makes fun of canadian troops dying in supprt of your US tropps in aghanistan?…seems your just as much as a f**king idiot as him…i could just imagine the uproar if a canadian "comedic" made fun of US troops dying…F**K gutfeld and if you watch him your just as bad as him (check youtube for his comments)

By: cameron_vale

cameron_vale — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 00:22:14 +0000

I was surprised by this too. As if calling someone a "goon" in a long and contrived statement and then not allowing them to respond was a winning a debate move.

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:36:00 +0000

Also, Moesart, doing a comfy USO tour and pretending to support the troops doesn't make you a conservative. I remember my last deployment, Al Franken coming to Iraq and doing his AWFUL "comedy" in front of, like, five soldiers who looked like they were there because the line at the internet cafe was too long. Ha.

P.S. Doing Clinton jokes is also not meaningful. Jon Stewart and Lewis Black did them also. The difference is the Clinton jokes are completely different in tone–the way you'd joke about a drunken, perverted old uncle. He embarrasses you, but you still love him. THAT's the tone they take about Clinton (or ANY liberal they joke about). But with a conservative, the humor is just vicious. The prime example of this is Family Guy.

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:32:03 +0000

It is so frequent for liberals to say things like this that I started noticing it during the 04 campaign. Variations of "you're far too smart to believe the things you say" or "the whole vehement conservative thing is a persona adopted to pander to small-minded redneck fans" is common. I've heard it said about Coulter, Beck, Limbaugh, even Bush and Cheney. I've had people say it to ME. My best friend was a teacher and is now in law school, and has had many people say it to him: "Wait, you're a Republican? But you seem so…smart! And nice!" Al Gore did it to Dan Quayle during a debate in 92, when he thanked him for not being racist or bigoted (like so many OTHER Republicans are).

It's always bugged me. I think if you're a liberal you're either stupid or evil (or maybe both) but I don't think it's FAKE. How sanctimonious are you to believe that it is literally impossible to honestly disagree with you?