Liberals deconstructed

[Sidestreamer]

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

"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."

Oh man, that was soooo funny. Thank you.

Imaginary victems:

We want our country back.

Imaginary villains:

Fascists
Communists
Socialists
Marxists

Run the lives of others:

If gays marry, they will marry their dogs.
Feminists are ruining the country.
"Magical Creation" in public schools

I love it. Conservatives looked in the mirror and what they saw was so ugly, they just assumed they were looking at "Liberals". Oops.

Whining about imaginary victims? Like the evangelicals who complain they are always persecuted for their beliefs?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's not confuse who is who today.

The conservatives today are the Loyalists of the revolution, looking back to a conservative period as loyal subjects of the British monarchy.

The liberals today are the Patriots of the revolution, looking forward to establishing republicanism as the model of governance.

I am far more interested in democratic republicanism than I am in Republican authoritarianism as we saw from 2001 to 2006. Never again.

 

[Navy1960]

Social liberalism, a reformulation of 19th century liberalism, rests on the view that unrestrained capitalism is a hindrance to true freedom. Instead of the negative freedom of classical liberalism, social liberals offered positive freedom that would allow individuals to prosper with public assistance in health, education and welfare.[1] This later included government intervention in the economy to provide full employment and protection of human rights. These policies were widely adopted and implemented in European and Western democracies, particularly following the Second World War.[2] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist[3][4] or centre-left.[5][6][7]


So then rather than refer to yourself as a "liberal" in the James Madison" sense of the word, i.e. who believed that individual liberty was much more important than a strong central Govt. and the rights of the minority were equally as important as the Majority; " common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole...and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party...." Why not refer to yourselves if you believe in what the current democratic party is advocating properly and that is a "Social Liberalist" rather than a liberal which are two different things.

 

[namvet]

why is it liberals always go to wiki ????

 

[Setarcos]

Social liberalism, a reformulation of 19th century liberalism, rests on the view that unrestrained capitalism is a hindrance to true freedom. Instead of the negative freedom of classical liberalism, social liberals offered positive freedom that would allow individuals to prosper with public assistance in health, education and welfare.[1] This later included government intervention in the economy to provide full employment and protection of human rights. These policies were widely adopted and implemented in European and Western democracies, particularly following the Second World War.[2] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist[3][4] or centre-left.[5][6][7]


So then rather than refer to yourself as a "liberal" in the James Madison" sense of the word, i.e. who believed that individual liberty was much more important than a strong central Govt. and the rights of the minority were equally as important as the Majority; " common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole...and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party...." Why not refer to yourselves if you believe in what the current democratic party is advocating properly and that is a "Social Liberalist" rather than a liberal which are two different things.

Was that to me?

I don't agree with the Democrats at all.

My beliefs are along the lines of classical liberalism and libertarianism, although I support limites collefctivist action in providing public schools for educating the nation's youth and I support local & state efforts to help the homeless and provide public access to immunizations etc.

I'm not aware of a 'school of thought' that accurately describes every aspect of my beliefs.

 

[Modbert]

why is it liberals always go to wiki ????

Navy is a Liberal? This is news to me.

 

[namvet]

why is it liberals always go to wiki ????

Navy is a Liberal? This is news to me.

so is Abraham Lincoln

 

[Setarcos]

why is it liberals always go to wiki ????

Navy is a Liberal? This is news to me.

so is Abraham Lincoln

As were Washington, Adams, and Jefferson

your point?

 

[Navy1960]

Laughs* first let me set the record straight here, I was simply saying that by definition "liberal" as used today does not really define the political positions of the left. As for myself, I would hardly think I could be thought of as a "liberal" or "democrat" and would come as news to me. I did want to point out though that when someone said they were a liberal and the definition basicially was, one who advocated laxed Govt. controls, it did seems somewhat odd, to also advocate for Govt. control and then call yourself a liberal. If you wish to know my political leanings nam. I am a lifelong republican when I first voted for Barry Goldwater. I tend to vote for the person rather than the party and by today's standards I suppose one could call me an Independent, who leans more to the right. I believe in a small Govt. with limited defined powers, and one that has it's financial house in order, as well as does not dictate to it's citizens on personal matters (whatever they may be). Hardly what you would define as a "liberal" by the standards as they are applied today.

 

[Setarcos]

Democrat =/= liberal

Leftist =/= liberal

for those of you (Dave) who think the FF weren't liberals, I ask you this: what do you think we called conservatives back then? Do you know what the FF did when they caught a torrie?

 

[DiamondDave]

The founding fathers in no way match up with modern liberalism... P-E-R-I-O-D

Conservatism and modern conservative ideals do not map to wanting the status quo of whatever government is in place...

Perhaps you should actually try and understand things for what they truly are instead of taking taking points from agenda driven blogs and bullshit ops pieces

 

[oreo]

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.

 

[Bern80]

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.

You know better than that Diuretic. Conservatives aren't oppossed to change. We're oppossed to stupid change. Example; conservatives don't believe our health care system is just fine. It very much does need work. But thinking a 'change' to more government involvement in healthcare is a bad idea and opposing it, is not the same as being oppossed to change.

Real conservatives (and there aren't many even among Republicans) are for personal accountability (a lack of which is a defining characteristic of liberals (see Michale Moore)), fiscal responsibility, and smaller government in general, to name a few. I don't really see how anyone can argue that any of those are bad things.

 

[Bern80]

Democrat =/= liberal

Leftist =/= liberal

for those of you (Dave) who think the FF weren't liberals, I ask you this: what do you think we called conservatives back then? Do you know what the FF did when they caught a torrie?

What he means is that they were not anything like what liberals as defined today are.

 

[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.

You know better than that Diuretic. Conservatives aren't oppossed to change. We're oppossed to stupid change. Example; conservatives don't believe our health care system is just fine. It very much does need work. But thinking a 'change' to more government involvement in healthcare is a bad idea and opposing it, is not the same as being oppossed to change.

Real conservatives (and there aren't many even among Republicans) are for personal accountability (a lack of which is a defining characteristic of liberals (see Michale Moore)), fiscal responsibility, and smaller government in general, to name a few. I don't really see how anyone can argue that any of those are bad things.

Points taken Bern but I'm sure you'll allow my comments to be taken in the context of Jester's post.

 

[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."

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ah yes burger boy- opinions are like like a$$holes, everyone has one

ROFL... those who use this phrase never seem to be quite bright enough to recognize the irony... and that makes this, one of the sweetest ironies of all.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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! ​

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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

"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."

Oh man, that was soooo funny. Thank you.

Imaginary victems:

I think you're searching for 'victims'...

We want our country back.

There's nothing imaginary about that sentiment... the ideological left is overtly attacking the foundation of America... resting it from its constitutional moorings... thus the basis of the sentiment being that 'we' (the Americans) want our country to be returned to its constitutional moorings.

Imaginary villains:

Fascists
Communists
Socialists
Marxists

A beautful demonstration of delusion; wherein you project that tangible reality is imaginary...

BRAVO! ​

Run the lives of others:

If gays marry, they will marry their dogs.
Feminists are ruining the country.
"Magical Creation" in public schools

Ahh yes... yet another reductio projection wherein you seek to transform the establishment and enforcement of sound sustainable cultural standards to absurdity...

ROFLMNAO... HYSTERICAL! (In at least two contexts and on several levels...)

Now recall that the article spoke of childish delusions which rejected sound principles... and see the demonstration of just that...

I love it. Conservatives looked in the mirror and what they saw was so ugly, they just assumed they were looking at "Liberals". Oops.

Well, its not a window as much as it is a one way mirror, where we're observing the patients who suffer stark clinical delusions.