Could conservatives be the reality-based community?
That’s an idea that must deeply trouble the left. Here’s a summary of why these scandals are so potentially dangerous to that side:
For five years, this president has been making the case that a growing and activist government has good intentions and can carry these intentions out with competence. Conservatives have warned that government is dangerous, and even good intentions get bungled in the execution. In different ways, the IRS uproar, the Justice Department leak investigations, the Benghazi tragedy and the misleading attempts to explain it, and the growing problems with implementation of health care reform all bolster the conservative worldview.
They do indeed. Could it possibly be because this “conservative worldview” bears more resemblance than the liberal one to, you know, reality?
Yes! Great find, Neo.
Yes, the article starts out with that premise, but in the end, rejects it as having any real impact on either Obama or the democrat party. The last sentence of that article says it all:
““From Obama’s perspective and from the perspective of Democrats running for president in the future, it is very, very hard to figure out how to stop this kind of thing, because it’s probably not doable.”
These things just happen on their own, and nobody in their party, and nothing in their world view about big government changes. They push on through it spin it all as isolated cases and political inconveniences to overcome. No big deal if people are imprisoned for a video, private phone lines are tapped without a warrant, or the IRS just happens to harass you because you voted for a conservative. This stuff is a benefit for the party in power, and they see that as themselves, indefinitely.
These revelations provide vindication to our (under fire) Senator Kelley Ayotte. Out of State anti 2nd amendment groups (funded
by nanny Bloomberg & Soros ) Run commercials vilifying Ayotte for voting against the Newtown expanded checks gun bill.
In explaining her No vote Ayotte says she has *concerns* that a list compiled with names & location of individuals with certain weaponry can be *used against* Americans & serve to nullify the 2nd amendment & do damage to the Bill of Rights.
How prescient she has been ! Ayotte served as AG in NH, with special expertise in US Constitution & Bill of Rights. She wants better mental health measures to help the violence problem.
I’ve watched the Stewart video and noticed he regretted that “the burden of proof” had changed, had shifted.
Wow.
That says it all because the Constitution places the burden of proof on the gov’t not the people. Stewart, in recognizing that all these scandals may cause this fundamental requirement to be re-asserted, knows and rejects the Constitution.
Stewart believes his rejection is based on reality, and is in agreement with Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayer. And in a sense, Stewart is right because in the vacuum of a Godless Universe, reality is what the educated elites say it is. Thus, like almost every issue, the meaning of the word is changed and the new definition, which is instinctively understood by the “are you in” crowd, makes the assertion (We are the reality community) true.
God commanded Adam to name things. Naming (defining) is a task which falls to man and his performance of it establishes and determines the end.
Eg., Obama signaled to all his believers that he was a definer by defining his origins. Didn’t matter that it was a lie. Not in their Universe. That definition finally resulted in creating a fraud, a fraud which when it is finally recognized and known, we will know Obama’s reign is over.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/05/the_still-forgotten_obama_lie.html
Well, we know how much Benghazi Barry likes reality, and how well lefties deal with reality, so…
Hey, that right there, there’s a there, there: Benghazi Barry. I like that. Benghazi Barry.
Freeze that right there.
Sharpie…
Nick Chase mis-described the in-your-eye error in his own picture.
The issue is not whether the black toner lines bend down and away…
It’s that the security ink – the green which is already preprinted and flat in the copier tray weirdly ‘bends down and away’ to conform to the toner lines.
This physically impossible phenomena is best seen bracketing “STATE” in the extreme upper left.
Plainly, the fake wasn’t even photocopied to security paper.
IIRC, it exists in digital form only. There is NO physical paper document to work from. Requests for same have been uniformly rebuffed.
========
Weird as it sounds, the odds are overwhelming that Barry was born in Kenya — by his unwed mother — lest her shame blow back upon the whole family.
In 1961, in Honolulu, that shame would’ve cost Ann’s mother her high profile job at the bank. There would be no ifs ands or buts about it.
In that era, abortions were not safely to be had. It was routine for ‘girls in trouble’ to leave town — as in travel thousands of miles — to reach term away from local eyes — upon which the child would commonly be put up for adoption.
(A kid in my neighborhood had exactly that status. b1959)
Today such pervasive practices are largely forgotten,
Knowing as they did that the baby was a mulatto — very much taboo in 1961 — even in Honolulu — just amplified the family stigma.
There is good reason to believe that Ann had the baby to rebel against her hyper dominant mother.
On this point I’m an eye witness: she live directly above me — a penthouse apartment — circa 1983.
When Barry dropped by — not often — she’d be raging on him something fierce — in the manner of a drill instructor — Full Metal Jacket style.
The future president took it all in stride. Upon reflection I realized that he’d deliberately goaded her — punching her buttons — knowing that his grandmother was all bark.
Since she was BOTH his grandmother and de facto mother (Ann was afar.) — raising him during his teen years — her influence exceeds even Ann. It was not a positive influence.
You might note that Ann chose a profession that required her to hit the road — never being around mom and dad — not even phone — nor scarcely write — and basically rejected American culture.
For obvious reasons, the MSM shunned an investigation of Barry’s relationship with the woman who raised him as a teenager. She was ugly inside and out — NOT photo friendly — not by a long shot.
Beyond that, her neighborhood — his stomping grounds — were gazzillion miles from the ghetto — the ‘hood. He was raised in the ultimate multicultural setting — within walking distance of Punahou and the University of Hawaii. It was, and is, an expensive place to live.
That high rise condo is still there.
I’ve read, from time to time, that his family really couldn’t afford to send him to Punahou, etc. etc.
How did they afford that penthouse?
These days it’d rent for $72,000 per year — it’s not a cheap neighborhood — not by a long shot.
there is actually only one reality based community
the empiricists…
and they dot the landscape…
Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.
Philosophers associated with empiricism include Aristotle, Alhazen, Avicenna, Ibn Tufail, Robert Grosseteste, William of Ockham, Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, Robert Boyle, John Locke, George Berkeley, Hermann von Helmholtz, David Hume, Leopold von Ranke, and John Stuart Mill.
however, they are done in by the metaphysics too, as life is not just materialism (which is communist), but spiritual as well… and in this case, i dont mean god spiritual, but emergent qualities which are not derivable from the parts.
not everything about flies can be found by ripping them apart, measuring, sorting and cataloging
which is why medical science is in a crisis as they have not gone far despite the expense, and they know it and fear the public figuring it out too.
the problem is that they are not rigorous enough
and i have had lots of conversations about this as i delineate answers from more rigorous views.
actually the hill has a great article that tries to explain this stuff as a result of right wing conspiracy and the heavy handed writing work of godlike drudge, who doesn’t write anything, but just points to articles, thereby negating the medias ability to accentuate, delineate, and negate
I came to the conclusion years ago that leftists live in a fantasy land where reality is just a matter of opinion. That’s why they keep talking about scientific consensus on global warming. They believe you can determine reality by taking a poll.
Blert,
I wonder if you thought at the time, there goes death.
But we need some death because some things need and deserve to die, which, ironically is what the execrable Elijah Cummings of the late Benghazi hearings fame meant when he said “death is part of life” meaning basically, get over it.
But truth does not die. It has an objective existence. It needs no hearer and no tongue. Of all things it is most like what God is.
The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.–Winston Churchill
http://listverse.com/2007/11/22/top-25-winston-churchill-quotes/
Oh Neo Neo, you dreamer. Lefties “deeply troubled” by the possibility that conservatives are right about something and they were wrong? It will never never never happen. Lefties know that it is not possible that conservatives are right and they are wrong. They are smart and conservatives are dumb. This is known. They are good and conservatives are evil. This too is known. Therefore, it is an unassailable fact that conservatives are never right and lefties are never wrong. Any facts to the contrary are not really facts at all, they’re — something else, I dunno, because shut up. Therefore, there’s nothing to be deeply troubled about.
See how that works?
Mrs Whatsit: I was being somewhat sarcastic. I think it doesn’t really seriously occur to them that conservatives are right. But it’s “deeply troubling” that there is the appearance of conservatives being right, and that it’s so difficult to explain how that can be without conservatives actually being right.
That’s a little convoluted, but I hope it’s clear.
Ah, I see, the “something else, I dunno, because shut up” part. Yes, it’s clear!
Sharpie…
In answer to your question — even that far back in time — without anything to go on but intuition…
I guessed that he’d be huge in either Hollywood or politics — and by politics I was thinking presidential.
I further guessed that he (D) wouldd be running against a white haired old Vietnam veteran. (R)
At the time I didn’t even know that McCain was around. I just reasoned (Sherlock style) that by the time Barry was in the hunt — Vietnam vets would be large on the national stage. Republicans nominate veterans.
And, in specific answer: I guessed that he’d win on his color — and that Hell would travel with him. (Hawaiian political style is congruent with Chicago — race comes first.)
=======
If I were to compile ALL of the unreasoned personal predictions that have come true — prophetically — it’d be as thick as the Old Testament.
========
One of the many: the Falcon and the Snowman were in my high school gym class. They were so anti-social as to defy belief. So, it took no deep insight to predict that they were headed for an epic fail — which would, of course, be done together.
(Neither suited up for gym class. They just sat on their asses and talked privately in the handball courts. All of the gym instructors were flat terrified of the Falcon’s FBI father. That dynamic ultimately ended up in treason — and a movie.)
Sometimes I think I’m Forrest Gump — without the idiocy — and the fruit company winnings.
Blert- totally fascinating.
I have argued in many places, probably here — the primary difference between the Boomers and the GenXers in the political arena is that the Boomers looked at Watergate and interpreted it as “You can’t trust Republicans“.
The Genxers came back with a different message: “You can’t trust Politicians“.
This is what led to the strong conservativism in the GenXers — the Alex P. Keatons.
Teh One is teaching the same lesson anew to a whole generation.
>>> they’re – something else, I dunno, because shut up. Therefore, there’s nothing to be deeply troubled about.
OK, I’m going to quote myself from previous comments, here and another blog…. It strongly applies to the above observation, I think.
================================
>>> And how many more times does stuff like this have to happen before people get it through their thick skulls that government is inept, incompetent, and the creator of problems rather than the solution?
An infinite number.
IQ is a measure of how well you learn from books.
“Wisdom” is how well you learn from experience.
There is no WQ test to match the IQ test, but, if there were, I make the claim that liberals would consistently rank in the bottom two quintiles on it. Yes, they are mostly “widiots”.
Think about it carefully. They just can’t learn at all from experience. Hence their endless support for collectivism (Communism works, it’s just that no one’s ever done it RIGHT), their boundless faith in government (it’s only the OTHER guys who are crooks), and their determination that no one but Them and Their Heroes ever does anything with Good in Their Hearts (ignoring the self-evident fact that most of the Left are self-centered, greedy, racist assholes with hearts that are “ten sizes too small”).
Book learning doesn’t affect this, and there’s virtually no correlation between book learning and wisdom. Noam Chompsky more than amply shows that… he’s obviously brilliant and yet a total fool. And there are lots of wise men out there who have never completed high school.
So remember that — they CAN’T learn. Literally.
This is due to a mechanism in libtard brains which I call the “Liberal Midnight Reset Button®”
Consider:
a) Suppose you meet a libtard who appears reasonable. They are open and honest and fully willing to discuss, without excessive histrionics, any point of view they espouse… (yes, this is admittedly rare)
b) Now, pick a topic dear to them, which you know they believe in but which you also know to be clearly wrongheaded, even if well-meaning.
c) Start with their supposition, and take them, step by logical step through from their supposition, getting acquiescence at each stage: “Yeah, that follows, uh-huh…”. Show by such reasoning that the net affect of their supposition is that the end result will be the exact opposite of what they purportedly support or believe in.
d) OK, you’ve won. Now what? Wait. You’ll hear something like… “Hmmm. I’m going to have to think about that.”, and you’ll go your own separate ways.
e) Now, a week passes, seek them out. Bring the subject of their supposition up again, subtly. You will hear them espousing the exact same notions of their original supposition unchanged, unaltered, as though the entire reasoning process you took them through in “c” never happened!
So what happened? The Liberal Midnight Reset Button® is what happened. At some point in the ensuing day or so, after they dropped off to sleep, their tiny widdle libtard brain started to process the new information. It carefully examined the new information in relation to Officially Accepted Liberal Dogma® (OALD), found it to be unacceptably running counter to it, and purged the new information without adding it to the libtard’s store of knowledge. BAM, conflict ended, Liberal Twitticism remains intact.
With practice, you can even watch this thing start to kick in as you have the discussion with them. In many cases, if they learn you’re “dangerous” to their precious Officially Accepted Liberal Dogma®, they will preemptively act to terminate, redirect, or otherwise alter the conversation to avoid the necessary mental CPU cycles required to purge the non-agreeing data.
You think I’m being facetious? Only in a sense. This process does exist and it really does act to prevent true libtards from actually learning anything new. 😉 And I’ve seen it kick in on more than one occasion.
artfldgr:
Exactly. The mistake most people make is to improperly distinguish between science and philosophy (or religion). This exploitation was previously attributed to traditional religions, but it is, in fact, a more common transgression committed by atheists or secular individuals generally. In their fervent effort to discredit and delegitimize their competing interests, they regularly exceed the boundaries of science, and concoct “scientific” theories which can never be tested nor the experiments reproduced in the original environment. They infer a knowledge which may or may not reflect an actual reality and is at best circumstantial.
It’s ironic that many people who defer to a divine entity for their post-mortem fate are also more likely to demonstrate greater compliance with the natural world, including the principles of evolution, and are more willing to accept and exploit its physical phenomenon to improve their own and their children’s welfare.
American conservatism is a hybrid of classical liberalism and Judeo-Christian philosophy. The former is entirely reality-based (i.e. pragmatic), while the latter establishes a separation of mortal and divine domains. The Judeo-Christian philosophy directs people that God will help those who help themselves. This requires them to exploit the natural order to improve their mortal existence, while tempering their ambitions to secure the Blessings of Liberty, among other Rights, for their Posterity.
I think the separation of mortal and divine domains is an especially noteworthy feature of the Judeo-Christian philosophy or religion. An analogous outcome for secular individuals would require them to distinguish between science and philosophy (or religion), which many fail to accomplish, in part due to self-interest (i.e. competition) and the egos of “scientists.”