Quote of the day—Scott Adams @ScottAdamsSays

The best cringetainment of the day is watching Colbert in full TDS panic mode argue that Constitutional scholar @AlanDersh does not have a logical argument. On the next episode of The Late Show, Colbert will explain why Einstein was just a lucky guesser.

Scott Adams @ScottAdamsSays
Tweeted on January 30, 2020
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Scott Adams @ScottAdamsSays

  1. There are many who view the U.S. constitution as being illogical, unfair, and oppressive, even bigoted in favor of white men at the expense of everyone else.

    Surely we’ve learned this much by now; that just because an idea is crazy and dumb doesn’t mean a lot of people won’t wholeheartedly embrace it.

    Once reality becomes established as your enemy, you have two choices from that point forward;

    1. You can turn back to reality at some stage, admitting to yourself and others that you were wrong, apologize and seek forgiveness. Narrow is this path and few are those that find it. (See Matthew 7:14)

    2. Having invested so much in the fight against reality, pretending that anti-reality is reality, and being proud of your ability to pretend, thus being stuck in pride and pretentiousness, continue to double down, opposing reality harder and harder whenever it contradicts you. This option requires you to get more and more crazy over time, until your craziness destroys you and/or those around you. You can take comfort in the fact that, having chosen this option, you have lots of popular company.

    In the U.S., we often refer to such people as “Democrats”. It is a fitting name in that it suggests that reality can be determined solely by majority opinion, that reality can and will change with the whims of culture and fashion. It suggests that anything can be morally sound so long as enough people agree that it is morally sound, and anything can be evil so long as enough people agree that it is evil.

    Having taken either option 1 or option 2, you will be seen as both a pathetic loser and a dangerous threat by those of the opposing alliance, therefore it is foolish to choose either side based on other people’s approval, but in seeking the approval of others you’re more likely to take option 2.

    Having fallen for the deadly lie which tells us that compromise is a virtue, some people will carefully flitter about in “the middle”, seeking love and approval from those on both sides while eschewing both sides. Being utterly devoid of any standards of right or wrong whatsoever, they’re probably the worst off and most despicable and contemptible of them all. In the U.S., we often refer to such people as “Republicans”. They like to think of themselves as superior, being the only ones able to “see the merits and goodness of both sides” and so they call themselves “Moderates” so as to place themselves above everyone else, who are all “Extremists” and thus all equally inferior. The problem a Moderate has is that, always hating “Extremists” and thus seeking the middle, the middle he is seeking is defined by the “Extremists”. He is thus always under the control of the “Extremists” he hates and from which he seeks love. What a miserable existence!

    The really fascinating thing about the option 2 people, who are the enemies of reality, is this; they must be able to recognize reality, otherwise they wouldn’t know what to oppose! Perhaps there’s more hope for them, they being both more perceptive and more dedicated than Moderates!

    • IOW compromise of principles or lack of principles is one of the roots of evil. Or as Aaron Tippin sings “You got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything”.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_s-Qk07KxA

      We’re in this mess because of “one good step at a time” along with an unwillingness to defend our principles.

      Conservatives need to wake up.

      • or as G. K. Chesterton wrote, when you stop believing in God, you don’t believe in nothing, you believe in anything. I read a biography of Marie Antoinette, and it was related that as the “Nobility” stopped being religious, they became superstitious, in ways that differed for everyone. Black cats and ladders and the number 13, of course, but also goofy things like melting lead and dropping it into water as a way of foretelling the future.
        But so far in America, people still believe in an all-knowing, all powerful, yet all merciful entity whose name starts with “G”.
        Government.

        • It’s been my observation that it’s a hole in our conscious that one must fill with something. God is an obvious choice.
          I think it’s safe to say for Joe it’s logic and reason. But for many it’s just themselves.
          For me the questions is; Am I doing the right thing by the one that created the hole in the first place? I don’t think I want to piss him off!

  2. You bring a crappy case to court. You can’t expect all the jury to buy the nod, nod. Wink, wink, (Trumps an asshole anyway), of your case. We all would vote to impeach Trump if they had him on a real crime. But.
    When your lies and hypocrisy are so bad that even lying hypocrites can’t go along with it. Your in trouble. Everyone smells the desperation in the water at this point. And their to eating their own.
    Funny thing is they just impeached Joe Biden from being president.(See video of Biden at CFR meeting showing that piker Trump how a real “Quid Pro Quo” is done.
    I feel the real entertainment will be when they lose the next election. Maybe Colbert can have a special showing him terrorizing his bedroom in a temper tantrum? They could call it: I hate you! I hate you all!

    • Sometimes the circus in DC really presses my Lawyer button. I never learned so much about procedure until I watched how the Clintons and other far-Left Democrats used the rules of procedure to run rings around the Republicans. At least until now, when they wanted to be true to the Constitution by following some parts and ignoring others.
      If the Senate had decided they have to hear witnesses whose testimony was not included in the House Articles, wouldn’t the Articles have to be remanded to the House for further voting on which witnesses should be heard and whose testimony would have to be heard? And that would be another opportunity for some witness testimony to be claimed as Executive privileged information. Another way of saying the House has the sole power of impeachment is to say that they must prepare the Articles. The Senate votes on the Articles. There is nothing about the Senate adding or subtracting from the House’s Articles, talk of a trial without witnesses be damned. Any lawyer should know about a “trial on the papers.”

Comments are closed.