Search For The Impossible
 

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.

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

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

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.

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

You all are such good little liberals.

That's because the content was moronic babble.

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

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.

"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.

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.

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

Busy morning, Clambake?

"jew"
-Vinth

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

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.

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.

Are you suggesting that he actually evolved?

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!"

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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'.

Bang
 

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