The Utahprez Law of Diminishing Liberal Intelligence states:
If a liberal hasn’t said something illogical, self-contradictory, physically or financially impossible, historically inaccurate or just outright stupid, you just haven’t listened to them long enough,
Have patience and wait, they will eventually hang themselves if you give them enough rope. Just keep them talking. Evidence of intellect is inversely proportional to the length of the conversation.
7 thoughts on “The Law of Diminishing Liberal Intelligence”
Pingback: The Time Machine « The Rio Norte Line
This is priceless. Hope I don’t piss in my pants from laughing so hard.
We aim to please…and it has the added benefit of being true!
I’m assuming that you’re referring to “The Law of Diminishing Liberal Intelligence” and not my sudden departure to the rest room. :o)
But back to the Liberals for a moment, I can understand their believing that it is necessary for a society to care for its own less fortunate and less equipped, but then, at least a portion of the more practical minded individuals, those who currently refer to themselves as “conservatives”, are expecting some longer term resolution to society’s problems. That conservatism lends its own set of consequences, like stagnancy, but it beats racing off the edge of a cliff, as the liberals are so bent on doing. The problem, as I see it, is that liberal agendas tend to be the result of knee-jerk, warm and fuzzy, feel good for the moment responses, and yet when you confront these liberals about their own decisions, they either don’t want to discuss the issues or they have have no relevant data to back them up.
I liken the situation to that of a parent and an unruly child, who continually refuses to take out the trash, come to the dinner table or go to bed on time, or who doesn’t understand why he may not drive the family car …….. Forget the fact that his physical stature prohibits him from reaching the pedals adequately, or that he lacks the moral discipline to avoid getting himself into situations where he might jeopardize the rights (and even lives) of others; the mindset of the liberal is that “If I can think of it, it must be for me”, and indeed, they perceive the world only through their eyes. They cannot relate to long term consequences because they are still congratulating themselves for having thought of some warm and fuzzy solution to some issue; gun control being but one of these.
From the other article I responded to here, you might have picked up on my disdain for the Bush Administration(s). These were not Republicans by any Goldwater or even Reagan standard, nor were they loyal to the conservative ideals that so many Americans had voted for them to uphold. Papa Bush began undermining the system throughout his tenure in the Nixon and Ford Administrations, helping Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz (and others) to subvert American morality through a sellout of our republic to globalist interests. Don’t get me wrong, they weren’t the cause, mind you; they were themselves pawns in a much larger game of globalist domination of which the likes of Rockefeller were in control. The problem was that they swore an oath of service and chose to do otherwise, just like the equally traitorous Clinton and Obama. While the average American was still believing that our voting system was working and that it was only being plagued with corruption between competing parties, what they didn’t understand was that the ENTIRE system was being subverted …… with BOTH parties being dragged toward a more socialist agenda by banking interests seeking to undermine the Constitution altogether.
Our once seemingly patriotic military-industrial complex has acquired a life of its own and, taking advantage of those otherwise still loyal conservatives seeking to hang on to the last dregs of truth, justice, and the American way, its representatives have foregone any restrictions to any troublesome oaths they once took and keep feeding this monster of globalism …… which, quite frankly, we are no where near ready to adopt.
It is no wonder then why, as author Holly Sklar has suggested, that the globalist agenda includes the removal of any unifying trends that individuals could seek to use through nationalism, ethnicity, and religion. From that perspective, globalism is FAR more dangerous than even liberalism.
Okay, I’m done with my rant.
No, you are spot on. Globalism is nothing but communism with better PR. Even Marx recognized that as long as there was one free state left in the world strong enough to resist, communism would never work. That’s why a primary goal of Marxism was a worldwide, borderless “dictatorship of the proletariat”. As long as one individual was allowed their independence to act in accordance with their own needs, desires and drive, the whole thing crashes down.
Sounds like Obamacare, doesn’t it?
Oh, yeah – and I’m old enough to get the “Junior Samples” BR549 reference!
Pingback: The Rubber Band of Reality: Cultural Change in the UK Coming? | The Rio Norte Line