2 Jan

Liberal Media Gloated About Suspicions That Hilary’s Concussion Wasn’t a Concussion; Now Clam Up

Ace @ Ace of Spades HQ:

There used to be a time when the media was willing to entertain the possibility that Democratic politicians were lying, or at least fudging the truth. We all know that when someone quits office “to spend more time with his family,” he was fired, for example.

The conservative media expressed skepticism about Hillary Clinton’s concussion-by-falling, wondering if there wasn’t more to the story — like her attempting to evade testifying about Benghazi. (Which they’ve also decided we should express no skepticism about!)

The liberal media pounced — because its role is no longer to question Democratic political authorities, or express any skepticism whatsoever about their claims, but to act as their Public Relations arm simply claim that everything a Democrat says is true — “from a certain point of view,” as Obi Wan might say. See, for example, this digest of the most egregious “fact checks” of 2012, where true claims made by Republicans are deemed false, because the liberal “fact” checkers don’t like the implications made, and where false claims made by Democrats (especially Obama) are deemed “true,” because, well. Let them explain.

Much of our method of flattering ourselves is by favorable comparison to others — to look at others, deem what others do “bad,” “stupid,” or “crazy,” and set ourselves up in opposition to that, thus reassuring ourselves that we are good, smart, and reasonable.

Apart from the surface-level bias at play — the obvious intellectual dishonesty, where “fact” checkers invent the category of “true but false” for Republicans and “false but true” for Democrats — there is a deeper, psychologically rooted bias at play. Because conservatives have been so “Otherized” by liberals, and so then because virtually anything a conservative does is definitionally bad, stupid, or crazy, a liberal insecure in his status or his intellectual ability engages in an unwitting game of Let Me Take the Exact Opposite Position and by so Reflexively Doing, Prove My Worthiness.

Thus, when a conservative expresses skepticism, the intellectually-insecure liberal must vehemently take the position of absolute guilelessness, absolute credulity. If a conservative doubts the word of a liberal politician, the insecure liberal demonstrates how rational he is by assuming — nay, insisting– that everything a liberal politician tells him is 100% true.

In an effort, then, to define themselves against the Other, they have taken an unfortunate tendency of the out-party to engage in conspiracy-theorizing (as the left engaged in under George W. Bush, by the way) and made themselves into reflexive skeptics against the skeptics, or, more accurately, reflexive paranoids against the ostensibly paranoid.

But this puts them in a remarkable, risible position, far more incredible and lunatic than any position they’re seeking to define themselves against:
postulating, incredibly, that there is an alien species upon the earth, a species which looks human but in fact is otherworldly, and which simply does not have the human capacity for deception or self-dealing behavior, and this strange absolutely-ethically-pure alien species is commonly known as “Liberal Politicians.”

Is the conservative paranoia about Obama being a Manchurian candidate with malice in his heart excessive and unhinged? Perhaps. But is the liberal reverse paranoia — what is the word? — that Obama is constitutionally incapable of selfishness, deception, and self-dealing any more reasonable?

It is in fact less reasonable: For we know many humans who are in fact selfish and dishonest, but we know of not a single person still living on earth who is by definiton incapable of either sin, to the point where, as their claims carry them, to simply questionObama’s, or Hillary”s honesty is to give evidence of a form of mania.

What a remarkable transformation of liberal views on the ethics with which political power is exercised — just 5-6 years ago they considered the theory that the American President had deliberately permitted the murder of 3000 citizens in order to secure a short-term political advantage a theory which, while unproven, was no strong mark against its proponent, to a new theory, upon the Apotheosis of Barack Hussein Obama, that the American President and his lesser ministers have simply not told a single untruth in their lives and to suspect them of doing so is a mark of lunacy.

Read more

       

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.

2 Responses to Liberal Media Gloated About Suspicions That Hilary’s Concussion Wasn’t a Concussion; Now Clam Up

  1. Nan G says: 1

    I sure would like to hear from some of the actual survivors of the Benghazi attack.
    There were supposedly about 30 of them.
    Mostly Americans.
    All out safe.
    And another one I’d like to hear from is the person who found the body of that Navy SEAL commander who supposedly killed himself.
    He, Pravda claims, and Hillary were actually in some plane crash while trying to meet ILLEGALLY with Iranian leadership.
    He was killed and Hillary injured, Pravda claims, just 3 weeks ago when she disappeared from sight.

    ReplyReply
  2. liberal1(objectivity) says: 2

    @Nan G: Please provide documentation of Pravda statement. I suspect that it is from Pravda the online publication—similar in content to the America’s National Inquirer—but not associated with Pravda, the national newspaper of Russia.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site