Quote of the day—amiable

Clinton is probably one of the least crooked politicians currently running for office.  She came from a middle class family and married a poor boy who made good.

September 8, 2016
Comment to No matter how you spin it, crooked Hillary is still crooked
[Via Tam.

As Robert Heinlein’s character said in Time Enough For Love (page 241):

Delusions are often functional.  A mother’s opinions about her children’s beauty, intelligence, goodness, et cetera ad nauseam, keep her from drowning them at birth.

Lazarus Long

Still, the depth of the delusion is amazing.—Joe]


13 thoughts on “Quote of the day—amiable

  1. It’s a religion for these people. To deny their delusions is to attack their religion.

    You might as well tell a mohammedian that mohammed was a homicidal pedophile. The reaction would be the same.

    Well, maybe that analogy doesn’t work, but you know what I mean.

  2. I guess we could say the same for John Gotti’s wife, too.
    — Chief, you haven’t had the “opportunity” to deny something my Stalinist Sister-in-Law said.
    It is her religion that Republicans are cartoon villains, and corporations and even businessmen can suck up the cost of any additional regulation (I swear it’s because she thinks they (unlike her small business) have a money-printing machine in the basement.)

    But it always surprises me to see the full breadth and depth of the Leftist totalitarian delusion especially in the way corruption is ignored when it’s their guy and how meticulous they are if it’s the other guy.

    • All you really need to have religion is a dogma and a devil. Republicans, and conservatives in particular, are this person’s devil…..

  3. That quote reads like something right out of Carville’s mouth from the 1990s.

    You think anyone actually believes that stuff, or are they just repeating talking points to show their team spirit? My experience is that people who say those things cannot elaborate on them, meaning they haven’t thought enough about it to explain themselves. It’s surface dressing. Makeup.

    Take a hundred run-of-the-mill anti gun citizens and see if a single one of them can tell you anything insightful about the NFA for example. They claim to care about the issue of gun ownership in America, but haven’t taken so much as five minutes out of their busy caring schedule to actually learn anything about the subject they want you the believe they care so “deeply” about.

    It’s because they only care “shallowly”, and that’s only for a show of allegiance with the team.

    I excoriated my mother a while back. She asked be about “assault weapons” in the manner of a die-hard Democrat, and so I asked if she’d heard of the NFA, or GCA, U.S. v Miller, etc. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. And so I told her she could look these thing up, that you can’t claim to care and yet not know these things already, without me asking or pointing them out to you. She has a computer. She taught Microsoft Applications in college. She’s been a life-long programmer. She knows how to use a computer and she has high speed connectivity.

    That was several weeks ago. I’ll bet you a thousand dollars she never looked up any of that stuff, and has forgotten what I told her to look up. But she’ll go to the Democrat Party meetings and rally against “gun violence” or “inequality” or what have you, blind as can be and intent on staying that way. It’s for the team.

    • There is a nugget of truth to this Lyle, but I would like to continue my analogy to religion a bit, if I may:

      If you pull 100 random Catholics out a 15 different parishes this Sunday, and asked them to describe the Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuals, I’ll bet 85% of them would get it wrong.

      I’ll bet a lot of Christians can’t adequately describe transubstantiation.

      There are probably other examples in other religions, but I’m going to stick to what I know.

      My point being, a lot of people can be religiously devoted to thing, but not necessarily able to elaborate on that thing as well as they like to think.

      • chiefjaybob: you’re claiming that people are often not as informed, even about the things they care about, as they think they are. No argument there.

        That doesn’t change the fact that, if a person goes out for full-throated advocacy, it’s quite reasonable to expect them to be informed about the facts — and even about their opponents’ positions. (If not, they will be used to wipe up the floor.)

        That, in fact, is an adequate alternative (albeit more labor-intensive) — instead of saying “I won’t debate you because you have no slightest idea what you’re talking about”, instead, use the facts they don’t know… to help them make utter fools of themselves. Time consuming, but sometimes worth it.

        (I’ve only done this once or twice, but it was satisfying. Once, while debating an anti-gunner, I got her to protest that she didn’t trust my statistics because of the source. I repeated the name of my source and said “I agree, I don’t really trust the Brady Campaign either.”)

      • Nor can the Lutherans describe Consubstantiation and why the difference with Transubstantiation is so important to their doctrine.

        And Lyle — Yep. Rah.

        Said Sister-in-Law was complaining about the burdens of rent control on the landlord, of which she is in that category now. I wonder what other tenets of Democrat holy writ will fade once she feels the bite herself? How much better if she could have seen this and shown sympathy awareness and understanding before it happened to her. Narcissism is pretty common nowadays.

  4. Not surprising. I know someone on facebook who posted the Krugman piece where he goes on about how the media is being unfair and too hard on the Clintons with respect to their “charity”.

    I pointed out that the Clintons had a long history of being corrupt grifters and she went on in the “I look forward to your fact based support”. And I gave a list of a dozen or so articles from Huffpo, Salon, Counterpunch, MSNBC, and so forth about that very subject.

    And then she went on about how those were just opinion pieces and that it proved her argument that the media is out to get Hillary, and besides Trump is worse (which even if true isn’t reason to let Hillary off the hook…).

    So yes, there honestly are people who watch the news and sincerely think the Clintons’ persecution complex is legit.

  5. Today’s politics is based upon feeding people’s need to feel a part of the tribe. The easiest way to prove one’s allegiance to the “tribe” is to show that one hates the tribe’s approved list of enemies.

    These people have no clue what the substantive policies of their “tribe” are.

    Ideology itself, even policy, has been eliminated from our politics.

    We have all had first hand experience of this with gun control advocates who have no clue what an “assault weapon” is, but know its bad. The actual root motivation of gun control advocates is the need to hate gun owners.

  6. It is part of a belief system. That’s what religions are. No facts are necessary to support a belief system. On top of that, it appears that individuals can have more than one belief system, and have them contradict each other, and see no inherent problems with that conflict.

    Questioning someones belief system is the same as attacking them personally, for most people.

Comments are closed.