Top Shrink: Liberalism a Mental Disorder

ed wrote-

Quote:

Nah. He's happier trying to pursue the role of rabble rouser. Only trouble, true rabble is all that is receptive to him.

Are you casting aspersions on my caste ed?

I'll have you know that there's a lot more of us than there are of any other social grouping and in the US a lot of our kind are armed and we know you are against that for the obvious reason that the nukes are unusable against us.

So don't push it mate.

What title do you consider appropriate for yourself seeing as you are not one of our kind. Or, at least, seem to be suggesting so.

I'd love to play poker with Omsig . . .
if i bluff with a busted flush and he falls for it, tough **** . . .
if you don't pay to see 'em, you don't get to look at my cards.
Where the hell did he learn to play poker?

spendius wrote:

ed wrote-

Quote:

Nah. He's happier trying to pursue the role of rabble rouser. Only trouble, true rabble is all that is receptive to him.

Are you casting aspersions on my caste ed?

I'll have you know that there's a lot more of us than there are of any other social grouping and in the US a lot of our kind are armed and we know you are against that for the obvious reason that the nukes are unusable against us.

So don't push it mate.

What title do you consider appropriate for yourself seeing as you are not one of our kind. Or, at least, seem to be suggesting so.

Is that a physical threat?
You have no idea how many "liberals" own and use guns
.

spendius wrote:

ed wrote-

Quote:

Nah. He's happier trying to pursue the role of rabble rouser. Only trouble, true rabble is all that is receptive to him.

Are you casting aspersions on my caste ed?

I'll have you know that there's a lot more of us than there are of any other social grouping and in the US a lot of our kind are armed and we know you are against that for the obvious reason that the nukes are unusable against us.

So don't push it mate.

What title do you consider appropriate for yourself seeing as you are not one of our kind. Or, at least, seem to be suggesting so.

Is that a physical threat? You have no idea how many "liberals" own and use guns.

edgarblythe wrote:

spendius wrote:

ed wrote-

Quote:

Nah. He's happier trying to pursue the role of rabble rouser. Only trouble, true rabble is all that is receptive to him.

Are you casting aspersions on my caste ed?

I'll have you know that there's a lot more of us than there are of any other social grouping and in the US a lot of our kind are armed and we know you are against that for the obvious reason that the nukes are unusable against us.

So don't push it mate.

What title do you consider appropriate for yourself seeing as you are not one of our kind. Or, at least, seem to be suggesting so.

Is that a physical threat? You have no idea how many "liberals" own and use guns.

Sounded like a threat to me Edgarblythe.

This Liberal owns and knows how to use a gun.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

gungasnake wrote:

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

* creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
* satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
* augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
* rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the
will of the government.

Liberalism is the philosophy of CHEATING.

For instance,
if a poker player claims to have a flush
with 4 clubs and a spade, he is taking
a LIBERAL vu of the rules of poker.

When caught, he 'll sound the liberal motto:
" that 's close enuf; don ; be too technical.
The rules of poker are a LIVING, evolving body of rules. "

Quote:

What a load of crap. What do you call it when George Bush lies and cheats like he did when he stole the election in 2000

That is factually inaccurate.
He won every recount
( including those of the anti-Republican media )
in Florida. Gore admitted it openly, tho it took him a while to do it.

If u want to talk about STOLEN elections,
look to Kennedy in 1960.

Quote:

and went to war against Iraq?

I call it being "about time "; he was too slow to do that,
tho his father was a fool for leaving Saddam intact.
He was an intolerable menace.

Anyway: the Bushes were never conservatives.
Reagan chose a non-conservative to balance the ticket in 1980.
I said it was a mistake then
and I say again now.




David

Without proclaiming liberalism to be madness, or liberals to be mentally or emotionally defective, it is, I would suggest, entirely appropriate to consider whether modern liberalism, as discerned in the policies and rhetoric of liberals, is out of balance and, and heavily leaning towards the pathologies the doctor describes. And if it is, to what extent does it reinforce and inflame the pathologies of some, or even the majority, of its followers.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Without proclaiming liberalism to be madness, or liberals to be mentally or emotionally defective, it is, I would suggest, entirely appropriate to consider whether modern liberalism, as discerned in the policies and rhetoric of liberals, is out of balance and, and heavily leaning towards the pathologies the doctor describes. And if it is, to what extent does it reinforce and inflame the pathologies of some, or even the majority, of its followers.

Since 'liberalism' in the USA is what elsewhere is called "left" .... well, e.g. the best ally of the USA is governed by such mad people ...

Without proclaiming liberalism to be madness, or liberals to be mentally or emotionally defective, it is, I would suggest, entirely appropriate to consider whether modern liberalism, as discerned in the policies and rhetoric of liberals, is out of balance and, and heavily leaning towards the pathologies the doctor describes. And if it is, to what extent does it reinforce and inflame the pathologies of some, or even the majority, of its followers.

Walter had responded.
Rama