Liberals deconstructed

[jillian]

Jester, you're fucked mate. A conservative stands for nothing but resistance to change. They're useful in holding back some of the more reckless progressives but generally speaking they produce no new ideas or social movements. Accept your role as one of the spoilers with good grace, there is an evolutionary reason for conservatism but progress ain't it.

my fave is how the brain dead ijits who agree with him all start cyber high-fiving him.

good to know they'd have thought the radical founding fathers and abraham lincoln mentally ill.

bunch of freaks.

 

[Navy1960]

Jester, you're fucked mate. A conservative stands for nothing but resistance to change. They're useful in holding back some of the more reckless progressives but generally speaking they produce no new ideas or social movements. Accept your role as one of the spoilers with good grace, there is an evolutionary reason for conservatism but progress ain't it.

my fave is how the brain dead ijits who agree with him all start cyber high-fiving him.

good to know they'd have thought the radical founding fathers and abraham lincoln mentally ill.

bunch of freaks.

As you know jillian I make no bones about the fact that I am a republican and am not ashamed to admit it regardless of some less than stellar members which both parties can lay claim to those. However, what caught my eye was your founding fathers, and here is a thought to ponder, the founding fathers were "liberal" in the true sense of the word in that they desired the power of Govt. to rest in the hands of the people and that Govt. was limited by the powers defined and nothing more. Save for perhaps Hamilton, who had perhaps a different view which the supreme court in the 30's took and ran with, thus giving new meaning to the term "liberal". I have always thought that to define one's self as a liberal and then advocate Govt. intervetion into one's private life seemed someone counter to the term. Take for example, the pro-choice agenda which as most know can be defined by it's advocay for keeping Govt. out of the decisions made by women and a whole host of slogans notwithstanding. So it would seem that the 21st century term "liberal" would be more or less a vague definition of the beliefs of the modern democratic party for the most part. Perhaps that is the reason why Hillary Clinton perfers to be called a "progressive" ?

 

[Qball]

Jester, you're fucked mate. A conservative stands for nothing but resistance to change. They're useful in holding back some of the more reckless progressives but generally speaking they produce no new ideas or social movements. Accept your role as one of the spoilers with good grace, there is an evolutionary reason for conservatism but progress ain't it.

my fave is how the brain dead ijits who agree with him all start cyber high-fiving him.

good to know they'd have thought the radical founding fathers and abraham lincoln mentally ill.

bunch of freaks.

Uh, I think maybe you're trying to grandfather in what's commendable about classical liberalism to justify the non-commendable aspects of modern liberalism.

 

[Diuretic]

Jester, you're fucked mate. A conservative stands for nothing but resistance to change. They're useful in holding back some of the more reckless progressives but generally speaking they produce no new ideas or social movements. Accept your role as one of the spoilers with good grace, there is an evolutionary reason for conservatism but progress ain't it.

my fave is how the brain dead ijits who agree with him all start cyber high-fiving him.

good to know they'd have thought the radical founding fathers and abraham lincoln mentally ill.

bunch of freaks.

Uh, I think maybe you're trying to grandfather in what's commendable about classical liberalism to justify the non-commendable aspects of modern liberalism.

Classic liberalism? Modern liberalism? We need some specifics I think because you're bringing in aspects of each so they need to be made clear. The Founding Fathers were indeed radicals, they were progressive thinkers - "progressive" being a relative term in this case. They worked against the conservatives and reactionaries. The point here is that there is a claim that progressives are mentally ill. That means that those who claim that must also claim that the Founding Fathers were mentally ill. Plainly they weren't.

 

[Setarcos]

Diuretic, how do you know whether or not any of the FF were mentally ill an, more importantly, what does it matter?

 

[MaggieMae]

Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill
Yep, no truer words have ever been spoken.
They're stark raving nutjobs!
PERIOD, end of story.

Sometimes I think it's impossible for a conservative-cum-author to come up with original material.

Op Ed: Dr. Rossiter's message: "I know you are but what am I?"

Op Ed: Dr. Rossiter's message: "I know you are but what am I?"
Posted Feb 17, 2008 by ■ John Rickman

Several years after a Federally funded study found that conservatism was a mental disorder a Right Wing psychiatrist has released a book, timed for the election cycle, claiming the same things about Liberals. Are we to believe that this is a coincidence?

Little known shrink and political hack Dr. Lyle Rossiter has released a new book entitled "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness" that is designed to feed the red meat hunger of Right Wing ideologues at a time when the Conservative movement is on the ropes after seven years of incompetence and corruption under George W. Bush.

Most of its claims are not so subtle reversals of the conclusions reached by four distinguished scholars that were funded by the US Government in a study to discover the roots of conservatism.

The report "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition" cost $1.2 million and was supervised by the National Foundation as well as the National Institutes of Health. It found that conservatism is essentially a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".

...

Plus, I simply can't trust anybody named "Lyle."

ROFLMNAO... Well, there's nothing new to the notion that Socialism is a function of cognitive deficiency; or disorder, as it were...

At the founding of the US, where someone demanded that their interests superceded the natural rights of man, the Continental Government rejected such notions as such, and declared themselves a separate state, unto themselves.

A short time later, the leader of the Government from which the Colonies separated was witnessed and is historically noted as being crazier than a shithouse rat.

The same has been debated for well more than two centuries with regard to the French Revolution and "the terrors" that followed; where many historians have described the Socialist revolution as a mass hysteria... what resulted in the murders of 50,000 innocent people.

The article lays out the reasoning in certain terms; it is overtly represented and leaves little to the imagination... yet, there is not a single post in oppossing response to that article which addresses even a single of those numerous basis points.

Thus, the respondents have sought not to take the basis of the argument and demonstrate where such is flawed... which would be the adult, soundly reasoned response; but have instead sought to flail at the concept on the whole and ramble on... advancing such childish retorts as: 'I know you are... but what am I?'

Now I'd say that where the charge is one which denotes Liberals as childish, cognitive deficients... that those who represent well grounded, reasoned adults would have taken a different tact...

Thus the Liberals have, through their own testimony and through their own actions, actually demonstrated all the proof that the article is spot on in it's analysis... and that is about all such an article can really hope to produce; ergo, this and the other responses of the same species of reasoning prove the articles point; that they are idiots of the lowest order and the simple truth, that if they were something other than such... they wouldn't be liberals.

Well DONE! ​

The usual psychobabble from The Pubi. If I can manage to get through the first two paragraphs of your boring diatribes, I soon realize I've (once again) wasted 10 minutes trying to figure out your point. So undoubtedly I never even get to your point.

 

[Wicked Jester]

If calling for civil rights, women's suffrage, and child labor laws are signs of insanity, perhaps we need more crazy liberals

Do not refer to democrats of the past as "liberals"----they weren't.

The democrat party of today is like night & day of past democrats. Consider JFK--a real hawk on foreign policy--gave this country the largest tax break in history prior to Ronald Reagan--& would have taken his liberal brother Teddy Kennedy out long-long ago. I know--I remember JFK very well. He is no longer the poster boy of today's democrat party--in fact he would be rolling over in his grave if he knew where his party is today.

Todays "liberals" actually believe that 5% of this nation aka the over 250K crowd will be able to pay down the deficit--give them "free" health care--pay for all these bail-outs--& an additional 1 trillion in all of Obama's spending plans. They are the party of give me-give me--give me at the expense to others--typically the "JOB CREATORS" of this country.

This is why LIBERALS SHOULD NEVER LEAD. If left unchecked they will most certainly destroy this country.

View attachment 8357

Jack Kennedy was a warrior for PEACE...he PROVED it...

JFK refused at each turn to invade Cuba...during the Bay of Pigs: the CIA lied to him about the Cuban exiles chances of success. Dulles and Bissell figured once the exile's invasion failed, the young president in the heat of battle would commit American armed forces.. the CIA was WRONG...

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy went against the Chiefs of Staff, most of his advisers and the whole military/industrial complex and worked out a peaceful solution to the crisis...

Kennedy often said he wanted his epitaph to be "He kept the peace." Even Khrushchev and Castro, Kennedy's toughest foreign adversaries, came to appreciate J.F.K.'s commitment to that goal. The roly-poly Soviet leader, clowning and growling, had thrown the young President off his game when they met at the Vienna summit in 1961. But after weathering storms like the Cuban missile crisis, the two leaders had settled into a mutually respectful quest for détente. When Khrushchev got the news from Dallas in November 1963, he broke down and sobbed in the Kremlin, unable to perform his duties for days. Despite his youth, Kennedy was a "real statesman," Khrushchev later wrote in his memoir, after he was pushed from power less than a year following J.F.K.'s death. If Kennedy had lived, he wrote, the two men could have brought peace to the world.

All while escalating the "peace keeping mission" in Vietnam into a full fledged war.

 

[Bfgrn]

Do not refer to democrats of the past as "liberals"----they weren't.

The democrat party of today is like night & day of past democrats. Consider JFK--a real hawk on foreign policy--gave this country the largest tax break in history prior to Ronald Reagan--& would have taken his liberal brother Teddy Kennedy out long-long ago. I know--I remember JFK very well. He is no longer the poster boy of today's democrat party--in fact he would be rolling over in his grave if he knew where his party is today.

Todays "liberals" actually believe that 5% of this nation aka the over 250K crowd will be able to pay down the deficit--give them "free" health care--pay for all these bail-outs--& an additional 1 trillion in all of Obama's spending plans. They are the party of give me-give me--give me at the expense to others--typically the "JOB CREATORS" of this country.


This is why LIBERALS SHOULD NEVER LEAD. If left unchecked they will most certainly destroy this country.

View attachment 8357

Jack Kennedy was a warrior for PEACE...he PROVED it...

JFK refused at each turn to invade Cuba...during the Bay of Pigs: the CIA lied to him about the Cuban exiles chances of success. Dulles and Bissell figured once the exile's invasion failed, the young president in the heat of battle would commit American armed forces.. the CIA was WRONG...

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy went against the Chiefs of Staff, most of his advisers and the whole military/industrial complex and worked out a peaceful solution to the crisis...

Kennedy often said he wanted his epitaph to be "He kept the peace." Even Khrushchev and Castro, Kennedy's toughest foreign adversaries, came to appreciate J.F.K.'s commitment to that goal. The roly-poly Soviet leader, clowning and growling, had thrown the young President off his game when they met at the Vienna summit in 1961. But after weathering storms like the Cuban missile crisis, the two leaders had settled into a mutually respectful quest for détente. When Khrushchev got the news from Dallas in November 1963, he broke down and sobbed in the Kremlin, unable to perform his duties for days. Despite his youth, Kennedy was a "real statesman," Khrushchev later wrote in his memoir, after he was pushed from power less than a year following J.F.K.'s death. If Kennedy had lived, he wrote, the two men could have brought peace to the world.

All while escalating the "peace keeping mission" in Vietnam into a full fledged war.

Vietnam War - US Troop Strength

November 22, 1963

Casualties
By Year
Country Year of Death Number Killed
USA
1956-1964 401
1965 1,863
1966 6,143
1967 11,153
1968 16,592
1969 11,616
1970 6,081
1971 2,357
1972 641
1973 168
1974-1998 1178