Search For The Impossible

[VinceZeb]

Search for the impossible
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 8, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Neal Boortz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

The e-mail came last week from a friend, probably the best talk-radio consultant out there. "Who can hold their own in an argument with you?" he asked. Wiseacre responses to my friend are a proud tradition. "Nobody," I replied, "unless they're very loud or I'm very drunk."

An angry "get serious" response showed that my friend wasn't looking for the flippant response. The search is real. He actually thinks that the genre is ready for a good liberal talk-show host, so he's looking for likely candidates. I decided to set the flippant and obnoxious personality aside for a few moments, and actually try to help someone for a change. Since it may well be that my friend, known to virtually nobody as "Mr. Sunshine," may not be the only consultant or broadcaster out there looking for a good left-wing radio talk-show host, others may benefit from my suggestions.

OK, so you're looking for a good liberal talk-show host? You're looking for someone who can ignore the plain language of the Constitution, defend plunder, promote big government, praise compulsory charity and bow to the gods of diversity – and do it all in a way that entertains listeners to the point that they won't be banging their heads off the dashboards when those commercials are running.

Good luck.

Hey, I really want to help you. Democrats, and their leftist-socialist fellow travelers are feeling so powerless lately. It's almost sad. Liberals are absolutely convinced that the lack of any truly successful left-wing talk-radio shows is the result of some grand right-wing conspiracy, and sooner or later they're going to do what liberals do best, use the government to force an outcome that the free market won't generate on its own. So, to Democrats, socialists, leftists and radio programmers looking for the left's answer to Rush Limbaugh, here's some help:

First and foremost, you are going to have to search for someone who will be able to provide a moral justification for plunder. The very essence of liberalism is plunder, defined by dictionary.com as "to appropriate forcibly." Every single penny of income tax paid to the imperial federal government is, in essence, seized by force.

Most of that money is then paid directly to another individual, sometimes as an earned benefit, as in Social Security, but more often as a simple transfer of income. Your liberal talk-show host is going to have to be able to explain just how a government that, as our Declaration of Independence says, "derive(s) (its) powers from the consent of the governed" is then able do that which we cannot do for ourselves without committing a crime.

He will have to argue that while he cannot forcibly take your property from you in order to give to another, he has perfect standing to ask the government to do that in his stead. Sooner or later, a caller will ask your hero: "If I can't use force to compel one man to serve the needs of another, how, then, Mr. Liberal Talk-Show Host, can I then ask the government to do that for me?" No ready answer, no credibility. No credibility, no talk-radio future.

Your liberal hero is also going to have to carry the argument that money is distributed, not earned. Liberal politicians emit copious amounts of methane talking about the "distribution" of wealth in America. It is my experience that those who listen to talk radio have this nasty proclivity to believe – correctly – that most of the people holding this wealth actually earned it. They will resist the idea of redistribution by government. Make sure your progressive pontificator can carry the redistribution-of-wealth argument with a "we're going to nail you and make you like it" demeanor.

Your liberal talk-show host will have to convince his audience that they should embrace their group and cultural identity over their individual identity. Today's most prominent leftists, including Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, have endorsed and promoted today's leftist assault on individualism. Kennedy has gone so far as to acknowledge his support for a war against individualism. Sadly, for liberals, most Americans still value their individual identity and believe in the idea of individual rights. See if your potential talk hero can defend the Kennedy-Clinton position. If not, he'll be in a world of ratings hurt.

You will also need to find someone who can demonstrate the wisdom and truth of leftist economic policies. Included among these will be the idea that money is better spent when spent by government, rather than the person who actually earned it. In other words, a dollar spent by a government bureaucrat stimulates our economy, while a dollar spent by a wealthy business owner does not. He will also need to argue that tax cuts should go to people who don't actually pay taxes, and that allowing a person to keep more of the money they actually earn is actually a "give away."

Sooner or later, the new Democratic hero is going to have to explain why a person who receives a $1,000,000 windfall is more righteous and valuable to society if they give that money away to low-achievers, than if they were to spend that money building a business that would eventually make them wealthy, and, in the process, would be responsible for employing 20 people. If they can't carry that argument in their first job interview, send them packing.

We're running out of time quickly, but this too needs to be said: See if your new leftist radio wunderkind can explain why our founding fathers wrote nine of the first 10 amendments to our Constitution to protect the rights of individuals, and then wrote just one to protect the rights of government.

Now, if you find such a person, send them to me. If they can pull all of this off, I want them on my side.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neal Boortz is an author and nationally syndicated libertarian talk-show host. Full disclosure compels him to reveal that he is also a "reformed" attorney who is being paid massive amounts of money in exchange for his promise not to actually practice law any more.

[Protoclown]

It's cute how Boortz is always right about everything.

[mburbank]

Here I thought this thread was going to be about either your submarine letter or your manhood and all I can say is

THPIT VALVE!! PRESS YOUR THPIT VALVE!!!

"Now max way to give the insulter a badness of words while at the same time not having been giving to that insulted one a fair playing of responses to the argument they have given. Jew."
-Vinth Thpatchula

[Zero Signal]

Vinth is Boortz's mouthpiece, alright.

If they were in a room together, I would give it 2 minutes before they would start sucking each other's dicks.

[VinceZeb]

Of course, the content wasn't questioned, just the deliverer.

You all are such good little liberals.

[The_voice_of_reason]

That's because the content was moronic babble.

[ItalianStereotype]

well, no. the way it was said was inflammatory and confrontational, but the underlying message is valid.

[The_voice_of_reason]

I don't see how. The assertion that no liberal can hold his own with Boortz is ridiculous, I don't know why there are no liberal talk show hosts. There are some liberal TV hosts but they are all like Bill Maher who is an idiot.

[mburbank]

"Now max way to give the insulter a badness of words while at the same time not having been giving to that insulted one a fair playing of responses to the argument they have given. Jew."
-Me, predicting Vinth


"Of course, the content wasn't questioned, just the deliverer."
-Vince, validating my prediction.

[Alxcipher]

I don't think you can lump all left wing economics into one basket. Or assume all liberals are seeking these targets taht Boortz asserts. His argument is basically that a liberal would fail if the liberal thought like Boortz, I'm really glad they don't.

[VinceZeb]

If more liberals thought like boortz, the country would be in WAY better shape.

[mburbank]

Busy morning, Clambake?

"jew"
-Vinth

[Miss Modular]

If more liberals thought like boortz, the country would be in WAY better shape.

Ann Coulter says something to a similar effect in her new book, Treason.

[punkgrrrlie10]

The only reason he thinks liberals can't argue w/him is b/c our realities are based on our perceptions. Since he won't give credence to liberals, of course he's going to think they can't give a good argument. Just b/c that is his perception doesn't mean it's right, but that's going to be his own little reality. You can't argue w/those who refuse to see the other side.

[Carnivore]

I thought this thread was going to be about finding someone more ignorant and moronic than Vince. I think that would be extremely difficult, but not impossible. I used to think that good ol' Ronnie Raygun couldn't be bested in the above mentioned areas, but then Vince crawled out of the primordial ooze.

[Zero Signal]

but then Vince crawled out of the primordial ooze.
Are you suggesting that he actually evolved?

[AChimp]

Not according to him. He was Created. :rolleyes

Anyways, I am very amused at how a conservative will lump all left-wingers together and brand them as "liberals," but when someone lumps all the right-wingers together and and calls it "conservative" they all get huffy and start bitching.

"Conservatithm is not being what I am. Libertarian, JEW!"

[VinceZeb]

There is more science backing up creationist theory than evolution nowadays, chimp. Sorry to nullify your eye roll.

Boortz is a Libertarian, and he disagrees strongly with some tenants of conservative thought. But libertarians hate liberals more than conservatives do.

Punkgirl, reality proves that liberals are dead wrong about many a thing, so why believe them? It is the boy who cried wolf syndrome. Liberals whine and bitch about every little thing and then are proven false so many times that when you actually say something of intelligent it is just dismissed.

[punkgrrrlie10]

And again you miss the point. Your perception is your reality. I could think that the world is made of ice cream but gravity keeps it from melting and no one would be able to prove it wrong to me if that's what I truly believe. I realize that it may be too much for your little brain to handle that you could possibly be wrong but your reality may not necessarily be right, but it happens to be how you perceive things that make it so, and people aren't going to be able to tell you the difference b/c you refuse to let them.

[Sethomas]

Vince, we've suggested before that you elucidate us on this scientific backing of creationism. You've always failed to do this, because of course you pulled that claim out of your dirty white ass. You don't even have religious backing for your asinine antagonism against evolution; you just refuse to accept the facts just to make yourself a more stereotypical conservative dipshit.

The right always brag about their abundant loudmouths because they feel so insecure about the fact that liberals have a monopoly on the entertainment industry and higher education. And the truth is, liberalism is so diverse comparitively that no one figure would adaquately satisfy the entire left. The right can easily spit out spokesmen because its masses more readily take the proverbial opium.

[kahljorn]

"Not according to him. He was Created."

God either has a sick since of humor or fucks up alot.


"that when you actually say something of intelligent it is just dismissed"

:lol
Speaking of being dismissed.


"There is more science backing up creationist theory than evolution nowadays, chimp."

YEA, THEY LIKE FOUND GOD'S MAGIC WAND HE USED TO CREATE ALL OF US, AND THEY MADE YOU WITH IT AND THATS WHY YOURE SO FUCKED UP BECAUSE YOU WERE MADE IN AMERICA. AND A JAR FILLED WITH SMOKE THAT APPEARED WHEN WE WENT *POOF*, THEY USE THAT FOR WONDERFUL INCENSE FRAGRANCE.
hahahahahahahaha.
What a fucking jack ass. You can't PROVE creationism, creationism is the theory we came from NOTHING, that every social structure and ecological habitat was created instantly(or over the course of "Seven Days"). What the fuck do you plan to bring into this SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF CREATIONISM(haha, that's funny too).
I'm awaiting for like, I don't know, the original Rib of Adam or something.

[VinceZeb]

Doesnt' the big bang theory also state that we came from nothing? If matter always exists and can never be destroyed, that means that matter must have had 1) always existed or 2) been created by something outside of reality. Punkgirl wants to talk about how "perception is reality", well, that is the perception of the Big Bang theorist.

Besides, that perception is reality statement is true for the lemmings, but not for us who can sort through the bullshit. Reality is reality, you can't change it.

[Alxcipher]

Doesnt' the big bang theory also state that we came from nothing?

No.

And reality is only subjective interpretation of reality, if it isn't possible to perceive it then it is of no consequence and eternally "true". However you can't leave your owne perception so your personal understanding must be understood by the subjective reality that you create.

[mburbank]

Since Vinth has used the word 'intelligent' instead of 'intelligence' on several occassions, I have to assume you don't know the difference between the two words or when to use each one. Originall I thought it was just a typo.

I'm also almost certain Vinth has no idea what the scientiffic method is, or what constitutes a scientiffic 'fact'.

Whenever he's asked about 'science' and it's relation to 'evolution', he brings up the Big Bang, which is no scientist has ever claimed is a fact, and really doesn't have much to do with theories of biological evolution.

I know, I know, asking that you actually know what the words you use mean and talking about the differences between theories and facts makes me an upper west side Jew. Hey, I've got a great idea! Why don't we take our differing view points and debate them somewhere, say Newsfilter?

Oh, I forgot, you're a cowardly little sack of shit and you can't back up anything you say because you're dumb as a post , lazy as hell, and you lack 'intelligent'.

[Vibecrewangel]

If matter always exists and can never be destroyed, that means that matter must have had 1) always existed or 2) been created by something outside of reality.

Matter hasn't always existed.
Matter can be destroyed.
Energy on the other hand......

[kellychaos]

Matter hasn't always existed.
Matter can be destroyed.
Energy on the other hand......

Isn't it all interconnected (Re: Theory of Relativity ... mass, energy. light)? Where did matter "come from" and where would it "go"? According to my understanding, matter may have been infinitely dense at one point ... but always present.

[Zero Signal]

Matter hasn't always existed.
Matter can be destroyed.
Energy on the other hand......
Matter is energy (E=mc²).

Matter can also be thought of as energy concentrated at a location in space.

According to my understanding, matter may have been infinitely dense at one point ... but always present.
Indeed.

One of the most interesting theories is the Ekpyrotic scenario.

"But instead of a universe springing forth in a violent instant from an infinitely small point of infinite density, the new view argues that our universe was created when two parallel "membranes" collided cataclysmically after evolving slowly in five-dimensional space over an exceedingly long period of time.

These membranes, or "branes" as theorists call them, would have floated like sheets of paper through a fifth dimension that even scientists admit they find hard to picture intuitively. (Our conventional view of 3-D physical space, along with time, make up the four known dimensions.)"

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-1.html

[Vibecrewangel]

Copy past from a couple of quantum physics and Buddhist sources.

Quantum Physics is at the cutting edge of Western science and goes beyond Einstein's Theory of Relativity. The interesting thing about quantum physics is that the original impetus giving rise to it, namely the pursuit of the elemental building blocks of the Universe (separate elementary particles), has become meaningless with the discovery that the Universe would appear to be an undivided whole that is in perpetual dynamic flux. Like Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Quantum Physics suggests that matter is just a form of energy (i.e. matter could be considered as 'slowed down' energy) and that like energy, it does not exist with certainty in definite places, but rather shows 'tendencies' to exist. Even more intriguing is the notion that the existence of an observer is fundamental to the existence of the Universe, known as The Observer Effect, implying that the Universe is a product of consciousness. (i.e. the Mind of God) 1

As American physicist, Barbara Brennan, states in her book 'The Hands of Light':

"Through experiments over the past few decades physicists have discovered matter to be completely mutable into other particles or energy and vice-versa and on a subatomic level, matter does not exist with certainty in definite places, but rather shows 'tendencies' to exist. Quantum physics is beginning to realise that the Universe appears to be a dynamic web of interconnected and inseparable energy patterns. If the universe is indeed composed of such a web, there is logically no such thing as a part. This implies we are not separated parts of a whole but rather we are the Whole." 2


[/quote]

[Vibecrewangel]

Matter is energy (E=mc²).

m = mass

Mass is measurement of how much matter something contains. This measurement differs based on where in space you take the measurment.

[Zero Signal]

Matter is energy (E=mc²).

m = mass

Mass is measurement of how much matter something contains. This measurement differs based on where in space you take the measurment.
Where in space is completely irrelevant. If applying it to matter it can never be zero, unless you are at absolute zero.

[Vibecrewangel]

Not when you take mass-energy conservation into account.

[punkgrrrlie10]

Besides, that perception is reality statement is true for the lemmings, but not for us who can sort through the bullshit. Reality is reality, you can't change it.


Obviously, you aren't comprehending the depth of what I'm telling you.

[mburbank]

'Reality' an undefined term Vinth uses in place of whatever he thinks at any given moment, may or may not be subjective. |As the only instrument we have to measure and test it is the human brain, a HIGHLY subjective instrument, we have no way of making a final judgement on the veracity of reality.

[Zhukov]

I thought God and Creation were based on faith, not science. God wants people to have faith in him, not in earthly explanations.

I am a better Christian than you, Vince.


And there were/are scientists that back up Creationism, hasn't anybody heard of the 'notorious' "monkey trial" of 1925?

"Insects might be more intelligent than humans, although "they’re not letting on…because things are going so well for them."

Priceless. :)

[VinceZeb]

You know the monkey trial was a sham, correct?

I know you have only watched Inherit The Wind and think you know all about what happened, but I have seen numerous papers on the subject.

[kellychaos]

Not when you take mass-energy conservation into account.

It sounded as if earlier your were alluding to an offshoot of "The Heisenberg Principle" (re: Matter being relative to the observer). For all pragmatic purposes, though, with no world there is no existence and, consequently, no observer ... and vice versa. Theory is great but what practical purpose is it to me when my matrix of understanding is within a 4-D world? I mean, I might as well buy into Bishop Berkely's contention that my mind creates my world ... and I can't abide by that 'cause I'm not THAT smart :) .

[Zhukov]

This is all I know:
A teacher called John Scopes was found guilty of teaching the theory of evolution, in contravention of the laws of the state of Tennessee. The trial actually upheld the state’s anti-evolution laws, which were not abolished until 1968, when the US Supreme Court ruled that the teaching of creation theories was a violation of the constitutional ban on the teaching of religion in state schools. Since then, the creationists changed their tactics, trying to turn creationism into a "science." In this, they have the support, not only of a wide layer of public opinion, but of not a few scientists, who are prepared to place their services at the disposal of religion in its most crude and obscurantist form.

Enlighten me further. I am not being sarcstic.

I merely wanted to point out the relation of science to faith and Creationism.

[VinceZeb]

The best source of information you can gather is from the book "Tornado In A Junkyard". There is a chapter on the trial and also on the movie that has great reference notes and also great commentary. There are many other great resources, but that is the one that combines everything into one nice little bundle.

[mburbank]

http://www.creationequation.com/images/TornadoInAJunkyard_inside.jpg
Moe called. He wants his haircut back.

[VinceZeb]

I applaud your ability to do research by yourself.

Who knows, maybe in a year or so you be able to think for yourself.

[Zhukov]

Hold on, I'll just rush down to the bookstore and get it.

[kellychaos]

Hold on, I'll just rush down to the bookstore and get it.

The bookstore doesn't give haircuts, silly. :)

[mburbank]

I gotta say it really stings that lil Vinthy Cut n' paste says I can't think for myself.

I think it was pretty bold of you to say that without it even appearing on www.boortzsycophant.com.

[Vibecrewangel]

It sounded as if earlier your were alluding to an offshoot of "The Heisenberg Principle" (re: Matter being relative to the observer). For all pragmatic purposes, though, with no world there is no existence and, consequently, no observer ... and vice versa. Theory is great but what practical purpose is it to me when my matrix of understanding is within a 4-D world? I mean, I might as well buy into Bishop Berkely's contention that my mind creates my world ... and I can't abide by that 'cause I'm not THAT smart .

I hate it when I somehow completely miss a good post.....



I'll give you my brief summation minus all the technical/philosophical jargon then led me here. :D

All there is is substance X.
Substance X can't be weighed, measured or quantified in any way.
Substance X is infinite. This means there is no space, no time, no matter, no particals......just substance X.
Substance X is infinite possibilities.
Existance as we know it is one possibility in a set of infinte possibilities. Sort of like a big cosmic choose your own adventure book. A matrix of things that could happen linkind to other things that could happen.
But in the begining there is nothing but a singularity. A singularity of possibilities. Once a single possibility begins to exists there is no longer a singularity and the matrix of possibilities begins for lack of a better term movement.
Unfortunately, human conciousness is not designed to grasp the concept of an infinite singularity. It goes completely against our view of space and time. But, if you can let go of that preconception.....you may end up in thereapy like I did.

One of my favorite things to ponder is

Infinite monkies with Infinite typerwriters over Infinite time could produce the complete works of Shakespere.

This is true. If you don't think it is then you do not understand infinite.

[Vibecrewangel]

My purpose for trying to sort this out......

I love the search.....I love the question....I love the possibilities. The answer means less to me then the question. The destination less than the journey. To me, once you find the answer there is nothing left. That is why I find those who say they have the answer, be it God or Science or Sex or Love, somewhat depressing because they have stopped searching. To me they have lost the passion, the drive to exist beyond some point.
Do I think that is wrong? Not in the slightest. It is just wrong for me.

Someday I hope to be able to grasp that I am the singularity. I am all the possibilities. I hope to be able to let go of my view that I am a part of something or that I am an individual within something and actually understand that I, that everyone and everything is that something.

Yeah yeah I know......crazy Buddhist babble.....