House of Eratosthenes

I’m shying away from specific predictions about the debate tonight, because among the specific predictions I could make, I’m seeing a big jumbled toss-up of remote possibilities, sure things, and everything in between.

I do have one general prediction to make though: Some of the items on this list, are going to be demonstrated before our eyes. Perhaps all ten.

Might make this a continuing series. Lord knows, after the last five or six years we’ve been seeing, I can keep adding to this list for awhile, with precious little time invested and even less effort.

Feel free to add on to what I missed in the comments, so as we embiggen it over time I can give you credit.

1. For the last four years now, all of the duties of President of the United States that have something to do with giving speeches, have been addressed thoroughly. The time’s come to start taking care of the other stuff.
2. Liberals have a quirky understanding of the concept of “freedom” that doesn’t work terribly well. Seems to have something to do with getting free things.
3. Because of #2, it is evidently beyond their understanding to notice their policies consistently make goods and services more expensive. Although, only for those among us who still pay for them.
4. Liberals also have a strange, special understanding of dignity. That, too, appears to have something to do with being given free things. And that, too, doesn’t work terribly well.
5. They lack understanding of the economic concept of scarcity vs. abundance. Over and over again, we see our friends the liberals trying to reprogram us to appreciate something a bit more, and their favorite techique for achieving this is to make the whatever-it-is more plentiful, ideally so we can’t ever get away from it even if we want to. Examples abound: Liberal women who can’t or won’t attract men; college grads; green energy; hip and edgy left-friendly “comedy” that isn’t funny; perpetually offended secularists and homosexual activists. Of course, humans aren’t wired this way. Of course, this lack of comprehension on their part is everybody else’s fault.
6. Speaking of fault: They place a lot of emphasis on this, at the expense of developing disciplines critical to actually solving problems. It’s like they stopped maturing somewhere during the teenage years.
7. A diligent, scrutinizing, skeptical “watchdog” press. With a democrat in the White House, we can’t have one.
8. Their idea of the Constitution seems to look something like: “US CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE I: ROE v. WADE. END OF CONSTITUTION.”
9. If our economy is going to get better, that would necessarily involve fewer people being poor and more people being rich. That’s both a cause and an effect, since this is a cyclical process. But I’ve just described exactly the situation liberals don’t want. The unavoidable conclusion is that liberals, whether they consciously realize it or not, want the economy to keep sucking.
10. Perhaps most importantly: Liberals are repelled by common-sense solutions. So highly do they value their own rhetorical flourish, after discussing things with them awhile you find they are drawn to the solutions most likely to fail, for the simple reason that the far more logical alternative is also boring and therefore would be selected by the humdrum hoi polloi, from which they seek to distinguish themselves. When their faily solutions do indeed fail, they consistently avoid admitting the obvious and instead counsel toward repeating the exercise with some trivial meaningless parameter changed, hoping for a different result, which of course doesn’t happen. In this way, their process for making decisions is less likely to succeed than another one driven purely by random chance. Summarizing it concisely: Asked what two plus two is, knowing that Sarah Palin would say “four,” the liberals we know today would be more drawn to “three” or “five,” because if she isn’t wrong then they don’t want to be right.

This is a bit outside the spirit of your list, but one practical one I’m really looking forward to is:

11. We can stop pretending that all of America’s social ills can be blamed on “evangelicals” or “fundamentalists,” because lots of “evangelicals” and “fundamentalists” hate Mormons more than liberals do. It’s gonna be a blast to watch the media suddenly discover, on day 1 of the Romney presidency, the shocking congruence between Mormons and the “fundamentalists” of the “religious Right”…. especially after spending months painting Mormons as some weird cult in hopes of scaring more “moderate” Christians into voting for Obama.

And then there’s 12., liberals believe that intelligence and moral superiority are one and the same, and that they reside somewhere very different from the head and heart. To liberals, merely spouting the talking points is proof of intelligence, while skin color automatically confers wisdom, backpacking around Europe for a summer gives one “international perspective,” etc. Well, Obama’s pretty much the liberal wet dream on that score — he’s black, he spent a lot of time in / was born overseas, and he spouts liberalism so sonorously when somebody else writes it down on a telepromter for him.

And he’s awful. Turns out there’s more to international relations than trying to pick up Canadian chicks on the Left Bank during your study abroad semester, just like economics requires more math than a Mother Jones editorial. And, of course, melanin does not automatically equal moral superiority. We’ve tried it all for four years, and the results are dismal. Time to have a look at the ol’ college transcripts (hey, where are those, by the way? I can still find Rick Perry’s with a ten second google search, and he’s been irrelevant since last August) and see if there’s stuff like math and science in there. It’s time to bust out the resume and check for private sector experience. Etc. etc.
- Severian | 10/11/2012 @ 17:38
And when pressed on an issue, just make shit up. I watched two minutes of the vice-presidential debate and I can’t watch any more. One man is an adult, and the other one is a buffoon.
- chunt31854 | 10/11/2012 @ 18:20
I have an additional reason but would rephrase the statement:

You should never vote for anyone who claims to standup for the rights of the little guy; EVER! Instead the little guy should always vote for the person who wants to make the law and government unable to tell the difference between the little guy and the big guy.

Why?

Because the way elections are won is by having the most votes. If a politician is supporting the little guy over the big guy then it is in the politician’s interest to make sure that the voting majority is always the little guy. Thus despite all the posturing and proclamations of solidarity the politician who is for the little guy must always ensure that the little guys exist in sufficient numbers to keep them in office. Thus standing for the little guy will make sure the little guy never becomes the big guy. In other words supporting the little guy means maintaining the status quo.
- Fai.Mao | 10/11/2012 @ 21:24
13. A Government can either police an industry, or carry it out. It can never do both. Therefore, if you want the government to be/remain an effective protection against fraud, abuse, and predatory practice – like any good liberal does – then you must vote against any candidate who desires to give the government daily operating control over any of those practices. Otherwise, they will be too busy defrauding and abusing to bother putting an end to those things; they will also make it illegal to avoid being their victims.
- nightfly | 10/12/2012 @ 10:12

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Ten Reasons You Should Vote Against Liberals Even If You HATE ConservativesThursday, October 11th, 2012

Ten Reasons You Should Vote Against Liberals Even If You HATE Conservatives
Thursday, October 11th, 2012