Bill Whittle: The Truth is out there

Bill Whittle often finds that when he is arguing with a progressive about why capitalism is better than socialism, that no matter how much evidence, fact, or historical context he gives them, they inevitably answer “well that’s your truth”. But the truth doesn’t care about his opinion, yours or mine. And that is his point.



Excellent video:

Comment Policy:Β Please read ourΒ comment policyΒ before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

83 thoughts on “Bill Whittle: The Truth is out there

  1. Bill Wittle is brilliant!!!! I wish this nonsense will stop with liberalism but it does not! Were do I begin?

    From most of my life until April this year I use to be a Christian and strive to make the bible work in my life. I had rememberise whole chapters of the bible. I use to recite proverbs chapter one through proverbs chapter 10 and other chapters in the bible on a daily basis until I had them at memory. I did so because I was a man searching for gods voice and I thought after listen to countless of pastors and ministers tell me the more of the word of god (bible) gets in me the more I will here gods voice. Yes I’ve been saved “ask Jesus and the holy spirit to come into my life” countless times. Been baptist by water and fire. I was what u would call a “holy roller”. I pray for people, went to church multiple days a week, tithe, give, etc. No matter how hard I try to fit the bible to reality it would never fit.

    The bible was the standard for my life. So anything I discover from science or logic I would try to find a scripture in the bible that best justify my new set of facts. In other words I was binding the bible to fit the new set of facts. The way christians did same thing long ago after carbon dating was discover up to 60,000 yrs so the logical conclusion is not the bible is wrong it is our interpretation of it!! A day in the bible = 1000 yrs.

    I was doing the same thing with capitalism! Individual freedom, right to your own property, etc = capitalism. True Capitalism it is not a necessary evil but it is the only true moral good ever invented by man! That allow men to do interact without the threat of force. True Capitalism it fits reality! It brought mankind from battling nature surviving to satisfying wants.

    That is the promises of the bible and every religion out there is the abundant fruits that has only been provided by capitalism. The sad thing is there is nothing in the bible not the commandments, not laws, god, jesus, apostles, etc by following them would lead to capitalism!!! Everything in the bible goes against rational judgment and reason! It gives u a cheap explanation of existence and it gives an incredible destructive guilt and fear. Guilt for our failures and fear of the consequence of not following!!!!!

    The morality in the bible itself is evil!!! It’s evil because it needs your acceptance in the guilt of one mans sacrifice and the fear of hell for not believing. Men do not function rationally with the threat of force, fear, guilt. True capitalism is evidence of that. The sad thing is it does not stop there!

    Liberals and rinos have adopted the morality in the bible to implement very successfully their destructive polices. On the face of it. It’s very moral to help others in need. We all want to help someone in need. They pull on your heart because were capable to give. So, we let them tax us on a hill brain policies ss, Medicare, medicade, housing for the poor, etc.

    With religion you sacrifice your life for a god and your reward will be in haven! With government you sacrifice your life and your reward is in the distant future.
    Think about that. What are you truly sacrificing? If you really believe in government, god you are sacrificing your mind!!! The only thing that makes us different and superior from animals!

    With lassa fair capitalism you sacrifice your life to your rational judgment and your reward is as soon as u get off the couch! The morality in the bible can only be implemented by force and that is not very moral is it!!!!

    Palin2012!!!!

    1. Sorry to hear. Before I even finished your second sentence, I began praying for you. It seems to me you were caught up in the motions more than having an actual relationship. So many ppl try to be ‘religious’. Remember the pharisees and saducees were the most ‘religious’ ppl in their times.

      We are not called to be christians, we’re called to be followers of Christ. Seems to me sir, most of your ‘christian’ life you merely were one. Jesus is unique in that He’s a personal God. Stay away sir from religion; that stuff can get you into trouble….>see Earther’s like Al Gore and Jihadists like Osama.

      “No matter how hard I try to fit the bible to reality it would never fit.”

      Who’s reality? What reality? Yours? LOL! The problem with that is your “reality” is seen through a lense and it goes through a filter, both of which are…YOU! You tried to mold “church” and “the bible” to fit you. Newsflash: It’s not about you. To too many ‘christians’ God is their sugardaddy, their yes man, their candyman.

      “Everything in the bible goes against rational judgment and reason! It gives u a cheap explanation of existence and it gives an incredible destructive guilt and fear. Guilt for our failures and fear of the consequence of not following!”

      Speak for yourself! I believe the Bible! It has answered all of this skeptic’s questions and then some. And I have not guilt or fear. How or where in the Bible did you see anything to give you “guilt for your failures”? Just what church were you attending sir!?

      Let me tell you what happened to me this summer. This 40 year old went on a mission trip for just one week. Lifechanging does not describe it! Something hit me while I was in the middle of my incredible week…all those hours sitting listening to preachers, teachers, CD’s, DVD’s etc. and I could not remember ANYTHING. IT was just me and the masses of poor villagers. Fifteen missionaries dispersed among hundreds of souls who had no concept what sin is. No idea what Jesus means to a person. All I could do is talk to them, love them and pray for them. There’s not enough room on this blog for me to tell the amazing things I witnessed.

      I’m not gonna try to ‘save’ you all over again. You are obviously tired and don’t want to commit to any relationship again. If you ever change your mind I’d tell you a line or two from the Matrix.

      1) “You think that’s air your breathin?”
      2) “There is no spoon”

  2. Why are half the comments threads on this video discussing water boarding? This video has nothing to do with that topic. Someone grinding axes or something?

  3. This comments thread is right out of Toon Town – I love it. All we need now is Roger Rabbit and some dip:)

  4. This comments thread is right out of Toon Town – I love it. All we need now is Roger Rabbit and some dip:)

  5. They have another line that makes my head explode. When a progressive is faced with facts, they reply: “Well we’ll just agree to disagree”. Says who?

    1. That’s when you have to say, “Oh no you don’t, get back over here, I’m not done pummeling you yet. Me and the truth want to set you free. We also want to kick you in the chin until those cartoon stars encircle your moon-mellon!”

      Is that wrong? Absolutely!

      D,d,d,d,d,dat’s all folks.

          1. Al Fresco…the lack of shorts will set you freeeeeee!

            Yep, this is a fun page. I figured our little Daffy cartoon friend would like it πŸ˜€

  6. Yeppy, deppy, doo. That “your truth” business is way, way over to the left of ludicrous. It’s teetering on edge of the coyote’s favorite crazy cliff, just waiting to be handed that special acme anvil before it loses it’s grip on the precipice πŸ™‚

    It is similar to this statement they use a lot. “There ain’t no absolutes.”

    Let’s analyze that for a second shall we? I guess the caveat there would have to be something like this: “There ain’t no absolutes…except this statement of course.” All other statements are relative…to a neatly arranged pile of goose-droppings.

    1. Funny thing is we live in a world of absolutes, science, physics, chemistry, etc. all have absolutes! To quote John Adams “facts are stubborn things.”

      1. Yes it is. I said that in a roundabout way..with sarcasm added…it was more fun. Cuz the shortest distance between two points is a coyote going over a cliff silly.

  7. My favorite part in this is his bleak description of people fleeing Cuba or East Germany for freedom, but never -EVER- the other way around.

        1. Moral relativism and situational ethics cut both ways. You’ve described torture as a situational ethic – able to be overlooked where you might prevent genocide. It’s difficult to dismiss liberals as ‘moral relativists’ when you practice your own brand. You justify it in consequentialist terms – but it’s still a justification used in order to keep any ethic from being absolute.

          1. No, it isn’t quite that complicated. It is simply basic common sense. To treat the terrorist with kid gloves while a miilion people die because of him, is just dumb, aka stooopid.

            It isn’t a philosophy course in need of a pointy-headed answer. It’s Wisdom versus Foolishness, plain and simple, and you are pitching your tent in the foolishness camp.

            The same camp that kills unborn babies while coddling mass murderers.

            1. I’m in favor of killing neither.

              False choices are always extrapolated as a justification to mitigate ethical absolutes…and lifeboat scenarios say more about our lack of imagination in problem solving than they ever do about the actual realities we face.

              1. Talk about a “lack of imagination in problem solving”…

                While you’re tapping that imagination of yours, a mushroom cloud rises as a lovely backdrop to your portrait of non-leadership. Your thinktank pats each other on the back and says, well, at least we did nothing whatsoever of any import to prevent it. We interviewed the terrorist responsible, we said please, we said pretty please and as we were getting ready to raise our voices at him and play tasteless music in his ears, the cloud rose while the flesh of a million humans was consumed, right where they stand.

                Your theories sound nice. They are not pragmatic. I wouldn’t want you in charge of anything where lives were at stake. Thousands of our own soldiers have endured waterboarding in their training. The waterboardee would still be alive and so would the population…hopefully.

                The guilty terrorist doesn’t even come close to the innocent son crushed by the bridge in my example above. I’d waterboard the shiite out of the terrorist, then turn right around and say, yes, there ARE absolutes, most definitely.

                Thanks for the discourse.

                1. You’d kill the terrorist and then claim that….it was wrong to kill under any circumstances….except where you really needed to…and then claim that killing IS a moral absolute. Interesting.

                  A consequentialist’s moral judgment is contingent on his flawed and limited ability to predict the future consequences. His moral judgment depends on the PREDICTED outcome. This gives rise to the very real possibility that people may take the wrong actions based on an incorrect future prediction. This, coupled with our human capacity for self-deception, is a dubious framework on which to base our moral guidance. As a result, I find consequentialism to be an unsatisfying guide to any just moral action.

                2. 1. You’re not paying attention.

                  2. I never said it was wrong to kill under any circumstance. That would be an idiotic statement in my opinion.

                  3. There are many times when killing is justified and highly moral.

                  That’s three strikes that I notice in the first paragraph alone. A million innocent folks could’ve died during your second paragraph.

                3. I think you’re not segregating in your mind the difference between what is moral and what is necessary. To me killing is never “okay”, and there is certainly no time where killing another person is “highly moral”. There are times where it is justifiable or necessary, but never a time when it is “highly moral”. And something being necessary does not automatically make it moral either.

                4. Says you Kenneth. I disagree. Your highly moral semantics wouldn’t be the same as mine. Killing Hitler after he’d only had a million or so Jewish people killed would, in my opinion, be highly moral, especially if he couldn’t be captured. To let him go on unabated would be highly immoral.

                5. I would see killing Hitler as unnecessary to stop the carnage from continuing further. Instead dismantling the structure he created is what was necessary — but killing everyone within that structure would not have been necessary to dismantle it.

                  But let’s go with an event that happened in more recent history. Do you consider the actions of Scott Roeder and Paul Jennings Hill to be “highly moral”? And if not, why not?

                6. I didn’t say kill everyone in Hitler’s regime sir. I said, kill Hitler.

                  I see you have asked me a question while ignoring completely the one I asked you. That isn’t fair or proper. Here it is again issued in a slightly different manner. From whence cometh the basis for your morality?

                  Here is my answer to your question anyway. I have never heard of the guys you mention until just now. I just did a cursory google search of them and It appears they killed an abortionist? An abortionist cannot kill a baby without the consent of the mother right? While the doctor performing an abortion would, in my opinion be an accessory to murder, he cannot do it legally without the mother. I have been helpless to stop a young lady from getting an abortion too. It was a young lady not related in any way to me, but she was the girlfriend of a good friend of mine. We said everything, did everything we could possibly do to get her to reconsider, to no avail.

                  This is much different than waterboarding a terrorist to prevent the imminent deaths of millions of people, even thousands. No, I would not kill an abortionist nor would I condone it. I would try to win the heart of the mother and dissuade her from the act though, as I have done before but I would not restrain her in any way, nor would I hurt the doctor in any way either. The doctor is acting in accordance with current laws (I would assume) and it is altogether they (Gov.), the mother and the doctor who are doing wrong.

                  If I have fallen short in my answer, ask a further question or seek clarification. I will be glad to try and explain further.

                7. Here is the kite I will gladly fly:

                  The world around all of us is imbued with generally good people who just want to make a decent living to provide for their family and otherwise be left to their own accord. Morality isn’t top-down, given to us from a god or a government. It is bottom-up, the result of self-regulation and unconscious cooperation within societies and civilizations.

                8. I don’t know how old you are but you are gonna have a tough life. You have things upside down and backwards. Good luck with that. I am thankful not to be you.

                9. Ah the argument from immaturity: “You’re not a Christian and you don’t agree with my definition of morality, so you must just be immature, and when you really grow up, you’ll see that I and other Christians have been right all along.” Oh brother…

                10. I’ll tell you this, Buster Brown, if someone jeopardizes my life and I get the upper hand, there will only be one story to tell. I really couldn’t care less about about your quibblings on morality. Further, their are humans that simply need to be eliminated as they fail to be of value to those of us that try to live by some code of ethics and morality and only endanger us. I don’t think I need to elaborate.

                11. “lead_pencil” as in a pencil made of lead, or is that the pencil out in front of all the other pencils. I’m thinking the latter.

                12. “There are many times when killing is justified and highly moral.”

                  …because you know the outcome AFTER you’ve done the act. This is my point. In reality, your moral judgment depends on the PREDICTED outcome. So – if you had to kill 500 people to prevent the death (based upon your PREDICTED outcome) of 1000 people – but something happened to where the 1000 people did not die regardless of your actions – then you’d say that the 500 people you just killed were the result of a “moral” action – just based on an incorrect future prediction. That’s hogwash. Your action was immoral by any measure.

                13. “This gives rise to the very real possibility that people may take the wrong actions based on an incorrect future prediction. This, coupled with our human capacity for self-deception, is a dubious framework on which to base our moral guidance.”

                  Careful now, the next thing you know you’ll be arguing that, not only does the God of the Bible exist, but humans need him.

                14. It’s called playing the odds or balancing the probability vs. the outcome. The higher the probability or degree of consequence, the more latitude you give in taking an action.

                15. Rshill7, Lets use your bridge operator as an example. Does he push the button or not. He must take into consideration various elements to arrive at a decision. The degree of consequence in this case might be the number of people on board the train. A 3A.M. situation with only the conductor on board or a 5 P.M. rush hour trip with 1000 people on board. You would be less likely to press the button at 3 A.M. than at 5 P.M. You would give yourself more justification ( latitude ) in your action.
                  In this example the probability is a constant, something disastrous is going to happen, but if it is a situation where it may or may not happen then that is another element that comes into play in making the decision to act or not but again the consequences are a factor and you must consider both probability and consequence.

      1. Okay, well I would say it’s irrelevant to my comment for one. Second, I would say it’s an attempt to muddy the waters. Nevertheless I digress, I wouldn’t even compare water boarding with torture. There is no physical pain involved or permanent damage done. The object is not to kill or maim but encourage the enemy to talk. It’s quiet tame (if not humane) compared to what they would do to you. Pulling finger nails, electrocution, now that’s torture. There really is no comparison between the two.

        1. Okay. Then I defer to whatever your definition of torture is. Would you ever torture a terrorist? See my response to Rshill7 above.

            1. Indeed you did sir. Lead Penis arguments have fallen like a lead balloon.

              I’ve fallen and I can’t get up!

                1. Summer down here in hot Bama has provided me a great ‘profit’ season, ergo…I’ve been slamming and jammin!

                  I have been able to catch the headlines and that’s about it. Not much time to… *ahem* ‘discuss’ things. Now I’m starting to slow down from 90mph to 70mph. That’s about right where I like it, so I should be able to commence arguments soon πŸ™‚

  8. To tell the truth, I had never heard of Bill whittle until I started coming here- but I love him! He is so to the point and everything is common sense- AND he’s always so calm. How many leftists can stay so calm?!
    Thanks Scoop for putting this up, it was great. Oh, and that’s the undeniable, non relative absolute truth! πŸ˜‰

  9. To tell the truth, I had never heard of Bill whittle until I started coming here- but I love him! He is so to the point and everything is common sense- AND he’s always so calm. How many leftists can stay so calm?!
    Thanks Scoop for putting this up, it was great. Oh, and that’s the undeniable, non relative absolute truth! πŸ˜‰

  10. Capitalism is better than socialism?

    I have had the “privelege” of knowing a couple of “honest” liberals who have acknowledged, after some careful prodding and leading that it would be “better” to have wealth equally distributed even if it means less wealth.

    But they immediately shut down when you introduce the idea that less total national wealth equally distributed means almost everyone being what is now called “poor,” except for the few who run the police state that controls the wealth.

  11. Capitalism is better than socialism?

    I have had the “privelege” of knowing a couple of “honest” liberals who have acknowledged, after some careful prodding and leading that it would be “better” to have wealth equally distributed even if it means less wealth.

    But they immediately shut down when you introduce the idea that less total national wealth equally distributed means almost everyone being what is now called “poor,” except for the few who run the police state that controls the wealth.

  12. The left is made up of thieves….yep. Whittle is briliant. I’d like to hear some idiot lilberal rebutt the “truth” he is speaking of. I think we’d see a melt down of epic porportions.
    Progressives suffer from a mental disorder, and that’s all there is to it.

  13. The left is made up of thieves….yep. Whittle is briliant. I’d like to hear some idiot lilberal rebutt the “truth” he is speaking of. I think we’d see a melt down of epic porportions.
    Progressives suffer from a mental disorder, and that’s all there is to it.

    1. Surely, he has tapped into the core. They have to disparage truth, because liberalism itself is a lie; the lie that you would be better off if liberals controlled your property and thus your life.

  14. Bill Whittle is great.

    Fact and Truth is verifiable and the left doesn’t have any verifiable facts to endorse the progressive perspective. Truth that Capitalism is better than Socialism is verifiable.

  15. Bill Whittle is great.

    Fact and Truth is verifiable and the left doesn’t have any verifiable facts to endorse the progressive perspective. Truth that Capitalism is better than Socialism is verifiable.

    1. That is exactly what they want you to say. If you and other conservatives are prepared to acknowledge that moral relativism is the governing principle of the universe, they will have a parade.

        1. I am. I’m also in favor of B-slapping, nose-punching, and knee-nailing.

          (under the right conditions of course…like to prevent a huge genocidal act)

          1. So….situational ethics? i.e. it is okay to torture someone as a means to try to prevent a greater harm (e.g. genocide) – nothing is morally absolute then.

            1. Really? I disagree lead pencil. You don’t have a viable point. You might need a Boston pencil sharpener or something. You can’t make that leap.

              …unless gravity is temporarily suspended while you jump.
              “Look Ma…no hands…look Ma…no sense!”

              Ok, here’s a thought experiment, stay with me now:

              Poppycock

                1. It isn’t a link…it’s the word Poppycock with a line under it.

                  When did we morph into moral relativism or situational ethics? I think you are arguing with yourself.

                  It’s like this. Let’s say you are a train bridge operator. The gears required to make the bridge rise and fall, up for ships, and down for trains, are huge. Your little son has climbed down into those gears without your knowledge, cuz he’s an active little, climbing, whippersnapper. The train is coming and you are getting ready to lower the bridge, but at the last minute, you notice your little son is stuck in those gears and you can either kill everyone on that train, or you can kill your son by pressing the bridge button to, who’ll be crushed in the gears. No hope for him unless you kill the trainload by leaving the bridge open.

                  You push the button, killing your own son to save the trainful of sons, daughters, aunts, uncles, Moms and Dads.

                  Get it? Does the bridge operator remind you of anyone?

          2. So….situational ethics? i.e. it is okay to torture someone as a means to try to prevent a greater harm (e.g. genocide) – nothing is morally absolute then.

Comments are closed.