February 17, 2008
Of course, you didn't need to read the title or hear it from a psychiatrist to already know that it's true.
Liberalism is a Mental DisorderDr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, (says,) "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
Via Emigre with a Digital Cluebat
Authored by Woody
Posted at 10:30 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: HannahJ at Sunday, February 17 2008 02:44 PM (qwc1L)
One of the more risible pillars in the Soviet's totalitarian edifice was the claim that dissenters were, by definition, insane, since the regime's commitment to ``the people'' was unassailable.
Wingnuts go to great lengths to avoid debating their opponents positions on merit.
Posted by: Tater Salad Eatin' Hefer at Sunday, February 17 2008 09:01 PM (UvT8A)
Posted by: GM Roper at Sunday, February 17 2008 09:21 PM (S60yG)
Thank you kindly for the link GM, it's much appreciated.
TSEH proves my other, oft noted contention that Dem/Lib/Progressives have no sence of humor, in addition to having a verifyable psychosis.
Posted by: delftsman3 at Sunday, February 17 2008 09:56 PM (hQNov)
Well, GM, you operate the blog, so it's kind of up to you to keep the focus on positions, rather than on lame attempts at belittlement.
Here's a position to debate:
The surge in Iraq is a success only because the U.S. abandoned the Cheney-Bush mythology that categorized all insurgents as terrorists.
The success of these tribal leaders shows exactly why a U.S. withdrawal in Iraq would in no way constitute a victory for Al Qaeda. Rather, it would be a victory for the majority of the insurgency, which comprises tribal and religious militia headed by people like the Shieks now leading the Awakening tribes, with U.S. backing and the Al Sadr brigades, who have agreed to a ceasefire and are, for the moment, nominally allied with the U.S.
Prior to the surge, the U.S. propaganda consistently labeled the insurgents terrorists and, in fact, the Cheney-Bush political line still does, even though the U.S. is now arming and cooperating with many of these very same insurgents.
Apply that reality to the bigger picture and you can see that the lines between who is "for us" or "against us" in the Middle East are not at all clear.
The binary Bush formula of "You are either for us or against us" is disastrous as demonstrated by the fact that abandoning that position is the only reason for the qualified success of the surge.
Posted by: Tater Salad Eatin' Hefer at Monday, February 18 2008 05:53 AM (eN5/Z)
Tater Salad's question just proves the neurosis of liberals about Iraq. EVERYTHING has to do with Iraq.
Tater, if a team is using the passing game in the first half with little results but switches to the running game in the second half and wins, are you going to deny that they won and only focus on the early action?
Being a good coach and leader means that you make the half-time adjustments necessary for victory. On the other hand, if you had your coach, you would expect him to tell the team in the locker room that they didn't do well in the first half, so pack it up and take the bus home rather than finish the game.
Posted by: Woody at Monday, February 18 2008 08:23 AM (Eb/8J)
Wood,
Thanks for making a comment on Iraq.
The problem with right wingnuts is that they think war is like a football game. Cheering is an integral part of winning, they believe, and there are only two teams and only one winner and one loser.
Of course the reality in Iraq bears no resemblance whatsoever to a football game and cheering has little or no effect on the outcome.
It's quite possible, likely even, that all sides will lose the war in Iraq. No one will win. The terrorists who weren't even in Iraq until drawn there by the war may well be banished by the Iraqi insurgents.
But that wouldn't be a victory for Iraqis in the broader sense, since it would merely bring them to a security situation similar to that before the war. Moreover, it certainly wouldn't be a victory for the U.S. because everyone would know that it was the insurgents themselves, not the U.S. that defeated Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
The war in Iraq is financially unsustainable as well. Cheney-Bush's unilateralist approach has alienated longtime allies and left the U.S. taxpayer footing the bill almost entirely by themselves. This is shameful and needs to stop.
Other countries in the region and among wealthy nations have an interest in a stable Iraq. At the moment, they're staying out of it because they want nowhere near any project led by Cheney-Bush.
Perhaps a new president will be able to renew the global alliances the U.S. once had and relied on so effectively in previous conflicts. More important, a new president may be able to execute a clearly policy with regard to democracy.
As it stands, the U.S. supports the biggest, most powerful non-democratic countries in the region, with no discernible effort to use that support to compel democratization. People who pay attention, and know nothing of American football, can easily see that the U.S. doesn't support democracy in the region. That needs to change and, hopefully, it will.
Posted by: Tater Salad Eatin' Hefer at Monday, February 18 2008 03:27 PM (eN5/Z)
"Of course the reality in Iraq bears no resemblance whatsoever to a football game and cheering has little or no effect on the outcome."
Tater, contests have common elements, and there are similarities--motivating the players being one. Telling soldiers that they are dying in vain and that they are losers isn't any way to inspire them.
It's too bad that liberals controlled the White House for eight years and didn't solve all these problems that existed then and that you bring up now.
It would be better to be an American first and a Democrat second rather than the other way around.
Posted by: Woody at Monday, February 18 2008 03:47 PM (Eb/8J)
Woody takes an extremely patronizing attitude toward U.S. soldiers.
I've known a few and they are well sophisticated enough to understand that free societies will not necessarily cheer them on.
These men are motivated by professionalism and commitment to their fellow soldiers. They don't need or want cheerleaders telling the war is being won when they can see with their own eyes what's going on. They're smart enough and educated enough to know that the political goals of the war aren't what they're being paid to achieve.
On the other hand, what the soldiers I know do resent is the easy fake patriotism of chickenhawks. They resent being sent back to Iraq for additional tours by political leaders who never fought themselves and can't be bothered to even ask their constituents to consider enlisting.
Soldiers are a lot smarter than you give them credit for, Woody.
Posted by: Tater Salad Eatin' Hefer at Tuesday, February 19 2008 01:17 AM (UvT8A)
I never questioned the intelligence of our soldiers, Tater, so you can drop that phony red herring. The fact is that you are questioning whether or not our soldiers have human emotions. However, their intelligence makes them believe in the causes for which they fight and witness the results first hand rather than believe the negative liberal press.
I know from all of my friends who served in Vietnam the emotions that they felt when the John Kerry's and Jane Fonda's led attacks against "the baby killers." You're wrong if you think that those professional soldiers weren't affected by that.
People of all types and all professions respond to positive feedback better than negative attacks--and, that has nothing to do with IQ.
Posted by: Woody at Tuesday, February 19 2008 08:57 AM (Eb/8J)
You got the link wrong in your original post. It should be www.worldNUTdaily.com
Posted by: e. nonee moose at Tuesday, February 19 2008 01:52 PM (QsLds)
Posted by: HannahJ at Saturday, February 23 2008 07:16 PM (qwc1L)
Posted by: MKV to iPad at Wednesday, December 08 2010 08:25 AM (JvHbq)
Correct Religion Clothes will provide you with enough time to express your individuality and appear truly good when you do this. With ranges for each him and her, mom and her man can hit madrid seeking hot to trot and become practically bound to attract interest as people likely to wish to know where they too may get jeans as effective as yours. Hey, whether you confess any ensure that your lovable jeans a secret all to yourself is at your discretion - chances are you'll properly want to be on your own that appears so good! The true religion jeans on sale denims are cut to perfection so are effortlessly comfy sufficient to pay out everyday and celebration towards the evening in. The reality is you do not want to take them off even then!
Posted by: gytygvg at Tuesday, May 17 2011 03:07 AM (YBGrS)
Posted by: komal at Saturday, July 02 2011 01:25 AM (IW/qJ)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.








