# Liberalism is a Mental Disorder



## ihopehefails (Feb 14, 2010)

I've heard this phrase being uttered on some talk show.  It is rather insulting so I won't describe liberalism as that but let me explain my own thoughts of how liberals think.

A conservative looks at the first amendment as a legal principle that only applies in a court of law while a liberal looks at it as a principle to live by.  This is why you hear liberals say things like "I believe in the first amendment" or "this is what I believe <insert political idea in here>".  A liberal will apply this 'belief' in their personal life as something to live by and defines them while a conservative sees it as something they they don't have to live by personally and only a legal principle of how the government operates.   A conservative doesn't believe that he has to respect the right of someone else to speak freely on a personal level while a liberal does because it is a principle for them to live by so it would be hypocritical for them not to allow someone to speak.

The question is which one is better?   I believe the conservative way of thinking is better because if I am morally obligated to let someone speak then that person has that right in my home, my business, or any other place that a person has control over.   I actually lose freedom in this setting because I am obligated to do something that I don't want to and that is to listen to someone that I don't want to listen to.


----------



## elvis (Feb 14, 2010)

this is where you heard it.


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 14, 2010)

elvis said:


> this is where you heard it.



True.  I was trying to explain why it seems that way sometimes.   When someone believes something on almost religious manor they don't reason things out and become finatical about it.   Just look at how creationist attempt to distort reason in order to get the earth was made in six days.   

The best thing I ever heard was that religion without reason is madness.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Feb 14, 2010)

A liberal interpretation of the Constitution allows the government power to do things not thought of in 1790.

A conservative interpretation requires amendments to pass federal laws covering new technologies.

After all, all powers not given....

Either way, its a moot point until you get the supreme court to give South Carolina back to the South Carolinans.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 14, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> I've heard this phrase being uttered on some talk show.  It is rather insulting so I won't describe liberalism as that but let me explain my own thoughts of how liberals think.
> 
> A conservative looks at the first amendment as a legal principle that only applies in a court of law while a liberal looks at it as a principle to live by.



Why is it bad to have as one of your principles that all are free to express themselves, regardless of whether you agree with them?



> This is why you hear liberals say things like "I believe in the first amendment" or "this is what I believe <insert political idea in here>".  A liberal will apply this 'belief' in their personal life as something to live by and defines them while a conservative sees it as something they they don't have to live by personally and only a legal principle of how the government operates.   A conservative doesn't believe that he has to respect the right of someone else to speak freely on a personal level while a liberal does because it is a principle for them to live by so it would be hypocritical for them not to allow someone to speak.
> 
> The question is which one is better?   I believe the conservative way of thinking is better



You believe its better to be the bigot you describe?


> because if I am morally obligated to let someone speak then that person has that right in my home, my business, or any other place that a person has control over.



Wrong. They have no right to violate your home in any way. It is your home, and their presence is not welcome. There is a huge difference between running into your house with a bullhorn and saying what I will to any willing to listen without violating anyone else's privacy or space.

If you can't see the difference, then you've already proven yourself a retarded piece of fecal waste.


> I actually lose freedom in this setting because I am obligated to do something that I don't want to



And? You might not want to walk an extra 200 feet, but I don't want you walking through my house. You might not want to go someplace out of your way for target practice, but we don't want you shooting at cans in the backyard, facing the school across the road.




> and that is to listen to someone that I don't want to listen to.


You might not always want to listen to the police when they tell you you're too drunk to drive, but we don't want you killing our children.


Dumbass.


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 14, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2008372 said:
			
		

> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard this phrase being uttered on some talk show.  It is rather insulting so I won't describe liberalism as that but let me explain my own thoughts of how liberals think.
> ...



Gee....even when I try to be nice you can't hold back.  I will answer your first question since it had merit.

Why is it bad to have as one of your principles that all are free to express themselves, regardless of whether you agree with them?   Nothing but that right exist whether you believe it is something to live by or not because the only way that right can be taken away from you is by the government itself.   When the government has not laws abridging your right to speak then the only way that right can be taken away is when you are in someone's home and they ask you to be silent.


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 14, 2010)

Toronado3800 said:


> A liberal interpretation of the Constitution allows the government power to do things not thought of in 1790.
> 
> A conservative interpretation requires amendments to pass federal laws covering new technologies.
> 
> ...



Powers not given are reserved to the people which gives you more freedom not less because a society of no laws is a society of complete freedom.   The more laws you enact the less freedom you have.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 14, 2010)

Anger?

How is laughing at how stupid you are anger?

And when the hell did I come _into_ power?

Why was I not informed of this? I've got bills to introduce!


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 14, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2008393 said:
			
		

> Anger?
> 
> How is laughing at how stupid you are anger?
> 
> ...



Remember to wipe the screen after you blither.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Feb 14, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > A liberal interpretation of the Constitution allows the government power to do things not thought of in 1790.
> ...



Ok, I'll bite on the level of freedom.  Not that I brought it up in this post.

Yes, the more laws enacted, the less freedom I have to murder, rape, sell this or that narcotic, prostitute myself, drink beer on Sunday, dance, end my life with the aid of a physician, have sex with children, look at porn on public buses, operate pyramid schemes, them type of things.  

Some are bad bad bad, some good, some none of your business if I do it in my own home with other consenting adults.

I think of Mexico when I think of lawless small government.  Is there another place I should be thinking of?  Perhaps a superpower I'm forgetting about?  MAYBE Australia?  New Zealand?  

At the very least I believe in laws and a good number of punishments because folks can't be trusted.


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 14, 2010)

Toronado3800 said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



You are correct.  People can't be trusted to self-regulate themselves in a free society which is why some government is needed to make it work but since government enacts laws that removes us from our state of freedom then government is the thing that acts against freedom but since we can't be trusted we still need it at the same time.  It kind of sucks but until God makes us perfect people that can function without any external control we will always need government.   

The question is shouldn't government take the form that comes as close as possible to maintain the free society?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 14, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> because I am obligated to do something that I don't want to and that is to listen to someone that I don't want to listen to.



No you're not....Me? If someone is blathering on I just walk away or ignore them...


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 14, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > because I am obligated to do something that I don't want to and that is to listen to someone that I don't want to listen to.
> ...



Don't you belive in free speech?


----------



## rdean (Feb 14, 2010)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...ess-corner-stones-of-republican-ideology.html

It's impossible to keep things exactly as they are for always.  This is why conservatives are destined to "fail".


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 14, 2010)

rdean said:


> http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...ess-corner-stones-of-republican-ideology.html
> 
> It's impossible to keep things exactly as they are for always.  This is why conservatives are destined to "fail".



Not in 2010 and 2012...


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 14, 2010)

The liberal's strength is also his biggest weakness...

Karl Popper said it best:

The paradox of tolerance: 

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.  In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 14, 2010)

rdean said:


> http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...ess-corner-stones-of-republican-ideology.html
> 
> It's impossible to keep things exactly as they are for always.  This is why conservatives are destined to "fail".



Conservative believe or should believe that little government promotes freedom of the individual since there are few laws to restrict us in our behaviors.   'Liberals' believe in something called human progress where humanity will advance to some goal of perfection but is the free state interfering with any one person's desire to improve himself and pursue human perfection that they wish to achieve?  No because there are no laws that inhibit him in his pursuit but because there are no laws another person may choose another path to perfection or not pursue it at all because they are free to do whatever they wish.   

You may question if we have such a right but if we have the right to pursue our own religion then doesn't that presuppose the right to progress to the goal of human perfection that that religion has?


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 14, 2010)

elvis said:


> this is where you heard it.


And it's one statement he's made that I'd agree with.  It's cultural and political suicide by definition when you look at end results.


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 14, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> The liberal's strength is also his biggest weakness...
> 
> Karl Popper said it best:
> 
> ...



In other words the only speech that should be allowed is speech that is allowed.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Feb 14, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > ihopehefails said:
> ...



Is this going to turn into a post about legalized pot?  If so I would so happily tie pot legalization to the same bill which made any vehicle accident while high on pot or alcohol an attempted murder charge.  My view being do whatever as long as you don't go driving stoned and risk MY life or that of folks I like.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 15, 2010)

Toronado3800 said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...


I like Michael Savage's response on that.

Make Marinol an over the counter pill.

Done and done.  

Higher concentrations of THC in a convenient pill so you don't accidentally dose others around you and stink up the joint.

Then again, I've never met a pot legalizer who didn't want to (or doesn't currently) smoke it themselves and get stoned.


----------



## midcan5 (Feb 16, 2010)

"Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"  Our nation was founded on madness!!!!  or just a mild disorder in thinking progress is possible????


"Liberals demand that the social order should in principle be capable of explaining itself at the tribunal of each person's understanding." Jeremy Waldron


These hypothetical, meandering attempts at ideology definitions are tiring and often wrong. This one makes little sense. I find too many of today's youth have little understanding of ideology and less of the broad categories that make them up. Often they cross into each other and blend parts of each in order to work in the real world. For anyone seriously interested in understanding ideology I recommend this book as a good start.  [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Ideology-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/019280281X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Ideology: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (9780192802811): Michael Freeden: Books[/ame]


For me liberalism is essentially a state in which each individual can review a set of conditions that apply to all. These conditions allow individual freedom and the possibility of it meaning something to each person, but they are constantly under scrutiny and adjustment. Liberalism, as Jeremy Waldron writes, is about a social order that is acceptable to the people living under it. That almost seems too simple, but consider CEOs who make millions while the workers make minimum wage or have their work shipped overseas so CEOs can make more, and you'll find few who would gladly accept this state of things.

My cynical definition of conservatism today is found here and while it was written a few years ago, it still fits. What is a conservative? &#8211; Political Pass

In my mind and experience conservatism is basically reactionary, particularly in the realm of politics. Few conservatives seem to even understand their own ideological stance? What I find interesting is I agree with most of Kirk's points but often it is the degree and not the substance that matters. A genuine conservative on conservatism: The Kirk Center - Ten Conservative Principles by Russell Kirk


Starr's piece lays out why liberalism works better than conservatism, but conservatism has entrenched interests on its side and that can be a powerful force for the status quo, regardless of the status quo. http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/articles/articles07/Starr.WhyLiberalismWorks.pdf


"Ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would think is most reasonable to enact." John Rawls


----------



## Brn2bfree (Feb 17, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> I've heard this phrase being uttered on some talk show.  It is rather insulting so I won't describe liberalism as that but let me explain my own thoughts of how liberals think.
> 
> A conservative looks at the first amendment as a legal principle that only applies in a court of law while a liberal looks at it as a principle to live by.  This is why you hear liberals say things like "I believe in the first amendment" or "this is what I believe <insert political idea in here>".  A liberal will apply this 'belief' in their personal life as something to live by and defines them while a conservative sees it as something they they don't have to live by personally and only a legal principle of how the government operates.   A conservative doesn't believe that he has to respect the right of someone else to speak freely on a personal level while a liberal does because it is a principle for them to live by so it would be hypocritical for them not to allow someone to speak.
> 
> The question is which one is better?   I believe the conservative way of thinking is better because if I am morally obligated to let someone speak then that person has that right in my home, my business, or any other place that a person has control over.   I actually lose freedom in this setting because I am obligated to do something that I don't want to and that is to listen to someone that I don't want to listen to.




*Liberalism is a Mental Disorder 

That says it all !! Liberalism is destroying this country due to political correctness, lack of morality and I can go on. 

Liberalism in this country needs to be kept at bay...For all you Europeans who like your liberalism..cool...it's diferent here and don't push it on us. *


----------



## California Girl (Feb 17, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2008372 said:
			
		

> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard this phrase being uttered on some talk show.  It is rather insulting so I won't describe liberalism as that but let me explain my own thoughts of how liberals think.
> ...



Just a couple of questions....

Why is it that people feel it is okay to come up with the most asinine comparison in order to highlight what they disagree with, such as your (seriously ridiculous) example? 

Also, why is it that people feel it is necessary to pull another person's comment apart and disagree with it on a word by word basis. 

Dumberass.


----------



## rdean (Feb 17, 2010)

Brn2bfree said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard this phrase being uttered on some talk show.  It is rather insulting so I won't describe liberalism as that but let me explain my own thoughts of how liberals think.
> ...



Lack of "morality"?  Sounds like you wanna kill someone.  Yep, round 'em up and kill 'em for not being "moral".


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 17, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Also, why is it that people feel it is necessary to pull another person's comment apart and disagree with it on a word by word basis.




You posted multiple fallacies. Multiple fallacies were addressed.


They're your arguments. If you don't like the implications of your arguments, that's your problem.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 17, 2010)

rdean said:


> Brn2bfree said:
> 
> 
> > ihopehefails said:
> ...



Of course. Remember, many such idiots are neoxtians and the Bible clearly ordered the Jews to commit genocide and kill men, women, and children because the children to be killed were born into sinful societies that worshipped false gods.

It was American rightwingers, if you recall, who pushed for that 'Kill the Gays' bill.


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 17, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2017872 said:
			
		

> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Also, why is it that people feel it is necessary to pull another person's comment apart and disagree with it on a word by word basis.
> ...



No you take things out of context to distort them because when you put them back in context they have  different meaning.   It dishonest, annoying, childish, and shows a real inability to grasp ideas longer than one sentence long or you would not be going through someone else post sentence by sentence.


----------



## ihopehefails (Feb 17, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"  Our nation was founded on madness!!!!  or just a mild disorder in thinking progress is possible????
> 
> 
> "Liberals demand that the social order should in principle be capable of explaining itself at the tribunal of each person's understanding." Jeremy Waldron
> ...





> For me liberalism is essentially a state in which each individual can review a set of conditions that apply to all.



There is nothing pantheistic about this...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 17, 2010)

You present argument _x_


I show the implications of argument _x_ 


If you dislike those implications, you shouldn't continue to forward argument _x_


----------



## geauxtohell (Feb 17, 2010)

Anyone who is going to listen to a botanist attempt to apply a psychiatric diagnosis to a large population of the country is hopelessly gullible.

But keep buying Savages' shit.  He's got a mortgage to pay off.


----------

