On Apr 3, 6:19 pm, SMITH29 comcast.net> wrote:

No, that's not a very good video. You see what I, a Liberal, did
there? I DISCRIMINATED. Whoops. I just made a liar outta Evan
Sayet, whom, I might add, is not only a NOBODY, but not funny as
well. You know why Neo-Cons aren't funny? You know why you don't see
any big name Neo-Con "comedians" on the marquee? Because what they
are about is not funny: falsely claiming the existence of WMD, and
then thinking it would be funny to joke about that, and war, torture,
imperialism, hate-mongering, racism--Apartheid, being anti-poor, lying
like your life depends on it, worshipping success (i.e. the RICH),
touting Jesus, but following the tenants of Social Darwinism, while
screaming when the ACLU forces them to take the Ten Commandments off
the capital lawn, etc. Conversely, Liberal comics are funny because
they take the reality of life, which, many times is wrapped around a
Neo-Con agenda, illuminate something tragic, and find a way for people
to laugh about it, and cope with it.

Now, that is only a problem if you're a right wing propagandist, which
is all Mr. Sayet is. Right wing propagandists are BAD. There I go
AGAIN, DISCRIMINATING. One of the first things he says, as he tries
to make a case against Liberal sexuality, is characterize the movie,
"American Pie," by stating that, paraphrasing, "The only way a high
school kid can be cool is to sleep with his friend's mother." That is
pure B.S. If he wanted to be truthful, accurate, the statement would
be,"The only way a high school kid can be cool is to get laid before
graduating." Now, that may not be acceptable to Neo-Cons either, or
even other Liberals, when it comes to their children, but it is an
accurate description of what the movie was about. You see? I'm
talking about being accurate. Mr. Sayet's only interest, when having
one of these lectures, or telling "jokes," or writing for a right wing
propaganda mill, is winning an argument. Winning. At any cost. Does
the truth, or accuracy matter? Hell no! And I'll tell you something
else. His manner of delivery, the content of his spiel, at least in
that moderately watchable while way too lengthy speech, lends itself
to the audience's surrender of will, and almost blind faith that what
he says, and the message behind it is true, accurate, and to be
trusted, while denying as much truth as is necessary to attain the
desired result. Like a fraudulent televangeist; someone like Pat
Robertson or Jerry
Falwell.

He speaks in absolutes: Liberals defend evil while Conservatives
villify it, while periodically correcting and contradicting himself
about whether it's good or bad to speak in absolutes. Judging by what
I know about Neo-Cons, and if what he said in this video was the
representation of the official Neo-Con party line, he is declaring war
on Liberals (and calling for their extermination), because, while they
are simultaneously good-intentioned but evil, and, like Neo-Cons,
think only in black and white (pure B.S.), they are rotten to the
core, and since Neo-Cons speak for GOD, they have a duty to condemn
them and destroy them. This, I deduce, after knowing that the
Christian right wants to overthrow this government in order to allow
certain prophecies to be fulfilled, so that they can enjoy a 1,000
year reign with Jesus sooner rather than later. Oh, and Muslims are
all evil.

Simply stated, he denies or ignores the truth, and then thinks he has
the license to speak in absolutes, generalizations, and with much
venom and ill-will a "truth" based on a pack of lies. Once it becomes
clear that the truth to this guy is not important unless it supports
his argument, it becomes clear that nothing he says is to be taken
literally. Nothing he says is to be trusted. "Ye shall know them
by their fruits." Or, to coin a more modern saying,"He talks the
talk but can he walk the walk?"

Writerosity