Truth Derangement Syndrome [Reader Post]

Loading

Obama Hitler Pictures, Images and Photos

Sometimes an affliction becomes more dangerous over time. The flu is one such example. It can mutate and become far worse than it was originally. Liberalism is another example. It is more virulent than ever before.

Michael Savage wrote a book called

“Liberalism is a mental disorder.”

Liberalism is a mental disorder. It’s a disease that compromises cognition in a big way. It has mutated into a form that compels people to become offended by the truth. The truth becomes stupid to liberals. This disease has a name- “Truth Derangement Sydrome.”

To wit:

Democrats are offended by Rush Limbaugh so they forge legislation to shut him down.

Sarah Palin said “Don’t party like it’s 1773 yet” and was pounded for being stupid. Markos Moulitsas and Gwen Ifill led the charge.

She was referring to the Boston Tea Party. The liberals embarassed the hell out of themselves in their ignorance of history. Palin spoke the truth and liberals found it stupid.

Christine O’Donnell made a literal point about the Constitution during her debate with Chris Coons. She was absolutely correct yet liberals found the truth stupid.

The addle-brained liberal women of the View were offended by Bill O’Reilly speaking the truth. Whoopi Goldberg had this to say when O’Reilly spoke a truth:

“That is such bullsh*t,”

Of course, when the porcine princess Rosie O’Donnell asserted that Bush was behind the 9-11 attacks, no one got up and walked out. None of them was sufficently offended by that incomprehensible idiocy.

Juan Williams was fired for speaking the truth. Williams actually did not have anything to say about Muslims. He spoke about his inner feelings – his visceral response to seeing a particular situation. He was describing himself- not Muslims. He was describing his reactions– he was not “marginalizing” Muslims or anyone else. But the galactically hypocritical NPR CEO Schiller would have none of it.

Liberals are now offended by the truth when it does not fit their worldview. And if it does, no one is going to be allowed to speak the truth without retribution.

A little while ago on Fox News Frank Luntz observed that there are some countries in which you cannot speak the truth without fear of retribution- China, Russia and Venezuela.

When people are made fearful of speaking the truth there is no democracy. There is no freedom.

Just the way liberals want it.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
35 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Good grief.

On Wednesday during a speech in Parma, Ohio, President Obama decided to quote a former President to help justify his policy initiatives:

“But in the words of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, I also believe that government should do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves”.

I assume he was paraphrasing this actual quote from President Lincoln, but unfortunately he left out the most important part:

“The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves in their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere.”

H/T GWP

The 3 richest Americans Gates, Buffet, and Ellison all voted for Obama. They are all self made millionaires. The next 3 richest who are WalMart Waltons all inherited their money and vote conservative. Guess which ones are against the “death taxes” ?

How many people would not be listening to Fox News if King Obama hadn’t commanded them not to. Some of the most powerful words Obama has uttered are, “Don’t listen to….(fill in with appropriate person or company). If he would just command his subjects, “Don’t vote republican,” we would get the house, senate, governorships, mayors, etc.

DR John John Ryan just made your point with his #2 post.

DrJohn, I think you’ve just hit upon why there is such a seemingly idiotic alliance between Leftists and Islamists.

These leftists are opposed to the truth as you’ve shown.

Islamists are making the mere expressing of truth illegal in more and more of the planet everyday!

Through ”disparagement” laws and ”hate” laws people like Mark Steyn and Geert Wilders and many others have been arrested and charged, then tried for simply expressing a truth.

Obama certainly wants UN disparagement law enforced here.

@Nan G: #5 Let’s compare liberals and Muslims:

(1) Muslims are taught that it is OK to lie to achieve a goal. I don’t know if the liberals could tell the truth if they wanted too.

(2) Muslims are taught it is OK to kill some of their own to accomplish killing the infidels. Liberals feel it is OK to let soldiers die to protect “innocent” civilians, even though there is no such thing as an “innocent” civilian detector to test their “innocence.”

(3) The Muslims have the propaganda media on their side. So do the liberals.

(4) The Muslim religion wants to rule the world because it teaches that they should either convert all people or kill them. The liberals want us to turn the USA over to the UN, including our military so that it can eventually rule the world.

(5) The Muslim religion teaches that they should live in poverty and not desire material things. The liberals want to take your material things and “redistribute” them to the ones who THEY say should get them, so they want you to live in poverty too.

(6) The Muslim religion teaches that their laws will be obeyed over USA laws and company policies. The liberals say that ALL companies and governments should be unionized even if most of the employees don’t want it.

(7) The Muslim religion says to give all of your money to them and do whatever they tell you to do. That is also what the liberals are trying to do.

I guess the two are following almost exactly the same agenda. Thank you and DrJohn for bringing that to my attention.

@ John Ryan…a bit off-topic, old chap. What it proves, I have no idea. It’s nothing more than anecdotal evidence of something less than sinister.

The point here is that liberals do not like any truth that doesn’t confirm their disdain for the America we conservatives love. To “fundamentally change” the USA is to change it from a democratic republic into something less. Voters may be awakening to the nightmare that Obamadenajad is looking forward to.

@ Randy

He did indeed.

aare the 80+% of American Jews who are liberal and vote democratic all mentally ill? Should they be “institutionalized” ?

SMORGASBORD: HI, YOU have a great gift for MATHEMATIC ANALITYC
and CONCLUSIONITICLY; IN less scientific words, you are a person who can see the futur,
and solve its problem.
A genius yes, bye

I am not concerned with what millionaires are for or against on death taxes.
I am not surprised JR, that you do not understand when someone needs to be institutionalized. Yes they, like you are mentally ill. Are they a threat to themselves or others? Not to the extent they meet the criteria for involuntary committment.
People suffer from depression, a mental illness and aren’t automatically thrown in a padded cell. They are given meds and counseling. Something liberals desperately need, but avoid.

Don’t know about Larry Ellison but Gates and Buffet are avoiding inheritance taxes by setting up foundations that get their money. Although they may have noble intentions they are also avoiding significant taxes. If you look at some of the giant foundations set up in the last century the current philosophy is opposite of the founders intentions.

Liberals and progressives live in an alternate reality at best, or simply deny the truth at worst. We see it almost daily on this board with some of the responses we get from Greg and BRob. Twisted and/or spun facts are what they use to “prove” their viewpoints. What they can see with their own eyes is filtered through their damaged intellect and then gets remade to fit what they believe is right. Moral relativity is used to justify the actions or words of someone they support, while those they dislike, or hate, are not given passes on anything.

I believe in a Constitutionally charged government, that is restrained by the text in that sacred document. This allows me to criticize everyone who runs afoul of the literal language within it, and support those I believe actually know what it states. Along with that, I can weigh a politician’s words or actions against the Constitution and have it reveal the amount of respect that politician gives to it, or, in the case of liberals and progressives, how much they desire to step around it.

I have not heard one conservative politician state “The Constitution doesn’t mean anything”, or “We can do whatever we want”, or state something that so blatantly opposes the ideals set forth in the Constitution. I can, however, relate many Democrat politician’s words to the effects of the above.

In a previous thread there was a discussion of morals. Relating those morals to the Constitution, which is supposed to be the standard of restrictions for our government, we can see that the Democrats do not use anything to restrict their ideology. They consistently overstep the bounds, delineated within the text of the Constitution, to promote what they deem as right for all of us. I want my representation in DC to look at a bill, and ask themselves if it is restricted in any way by the Constitution. I want my President to look at the Constitutionally provided directives before issuing his proclamations. Simply put, I want my federal government to actually be limited by the Constitution, and what it stands for. When they do not, and they step all over it in trying to pursue their agendas, then our government becomes one of pure totalitarian edicts and has no moral compass to guide them in their actions. We have that now, today. Anyone who states anything to the contrary of this simply has their eyes shut, or uses moral relativity in their defense of the actions of government.

Liberals in a nutshell by Ronald Reagan:

We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer — and they’ve had almost 30 years of it — shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

Unfortunately, liberals now need to up the stakes. They still blame the fat man for taking advantage of the skinny man, but now they blame McDonald’s for making the fat man fat.

johngalt wrote the following:

Liberals and progressives live in an alternate reality at best, or simply deny the truth at worst. We see it almost daily on this board with some of the responses we get from Greg and BRob.

I could as easily go to a wacked out lefty blog and read commentary as unhinged, self-reverential and delusional as that which I find here. Indeed, back in the Bush days, I tended to do just that, pushing back against the “Bush lied and people died” b.s. memes; countering the claim that Bush was ‘not elected but selected’ in 2000 (despite current Ohio Dem Attorney General Rich Cordray stating at a class I took that it was “near mathematically impossible” for Al Gore to make up the 500 vote deficit regardless of how the recount was done in Florida); countering the lefty claims that any effort to cut government spending was per se genocide against the poor; against the various unhinged violations of Godwin’s Law (argumentum ad Hitlerum) claiming Bush had secret concentration camps where all the lefties were being tortured after being followed and bugged by Blackwater; against the nuttiness of Cindy Sheehan, “street theater”, and the concept that screaming at the top of your lungs is actually an effective way of convincing people that your side of an issue has merit.

But then something funny happened . . . Obama wiped the floor with the GOP in 2008 and almost overnight, all the insane nutty political talk and behavior went the exact opposite end of the political spectrum!

Now Obama is supposedly the most skilled lying politician since Richard Nixon; he did not actually win the election because he was not eligible (being a Kenyan and a Muslim) and ACORN stole the election; the former genocide against the poor that lefties decried became “Obama death panels” and “puling the plug on grandma”; Obama is now Hitler, not Bush, only he DOES have FEMA concentration camps and is coming to confiscate everybody’s guns; shrill Cindy Sheehan has been supplanted by the former half-term governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, who travels the country with a ten page speaking contract, pulling down $25,000 to $50,000 per speech talking about the “real America” part that represents a small and shrinking fraction of this country of 310 million people; and, once again, screaming at a town hall meeting, dressing up as a dead founding father and making grotesque and nutty signs constitutes “persuasive speaking.”

I cannot speak for Greg, but if you took a survey of my actual positions, you would conclude that I am very much a moderate in the George Voinovich mode. I know that is considered a Marxist-Leninist perspective in you guys’ view, but, then again, you folks are not rooted or grounded in any political reality that any learned person in this country would recognize.

Yes, the far left wack jobs in this country are disconnected from reality. That is easily seen when I ask them to explain why investing a part of the Social Security trust fund in equities or corporate bonds would be such a horrible idea, especially if we could boost the return of the trust fund; they have no coherent response, only an emotional reaction. Likewise, when I point out that the GOP concept of privatizing SS would not only be inefficient but also makes no friggin sense from an investment perspective, well then I am a “Socialist” — because I say the trust should be treated like a mutual fund, not divied up into several million teeny tiny accounts with no coherent investment strategy.

When I ask liberals why government should not be stripped down to a small number of really important tasks that are done well, and save the rest of the money, there is a blank stare in response, as if I am speaking Chinese. But for the nutty right, the idea that any tax cuts should come with spending cuts, so we do not CONTINUE to increase the deficit the way the Reagan and Bush II tax cuts led to deficits, there is nothing but angry, invective filled nonsense in response — like last week on these pages.

If you want to know why this country’s political system is broken, just read the fact-bereft pages of these blog comments, then check out Daily Kos: you are opposite sides of the same counterfeit coin. And you are the guys who are the VOTERS and the THINKERS on the right side?! Really?! It’s amazing. You cons here are as nutty as those on the left, but you cons don’t even grasp the parallels!

Obama is a serious person; you cons lost the 2008 election in a walk because you were NOT SERIOUS, as evidenced by nominating Sarah Palin to hold the Number 2 position. Think about it: Obama nominated a guy who had spent 30 years plus in the senate; you nominated a woman who was most recently mayor of a town with a population smaller than the number of seats in the student section of the Northern Illinois football stadium!

If the GOPers look to cut spending if they take over this year, or if they nominate Mitch Daniels in 2012, I will know that you folks are, once again, serious. But if you do what I think you will do and oppose any spending cuts on the big ticket items, continue to argue for more Medicaid spending, or nominate the likes of Romney, Palin or Huckabee, then you will show your side is nothing but a huge fraud where actual governing is concerned.

I say it again: I am actually hoping that the GOP wins the House. It will force your side to actually make some decisions and show exactly what you are about. Then we will see whether you cons actually learned anything after being dismantled in the 2006 and 2008 elections. We’ll see . . . .

@ Terry W,

John ryan is making assumptions of resident wisdom based on wealth, . . . big assumption.

Who knows who Gates, Buffet, and Ellison really voted for, however, not one of them can be accused of being particularly enlightened.

@Silly Bob: Let me get you a crying towel. Your insults and twisted arguments still don’t hide your agenda. Moderate? You? HA

@johnryan: You said:

aare the 80+% of American Jews who are liberal and vote democratic all mentally ill? Should they be “institutionalized” ?

Well if they were mentally ill, it would seem that they are on the road to recovery –

United States President Barack Obama has lost nearly half of his support among American Jews, a poll by the McLaughlin Group has shown. – Source

and

American Jews Disenchanted with Obama, Democrats – Source

😀

B-Rob: YES SR, we will see, what the conservatives will do, DON’T you ever doubt it,
AND look what the word CONSERVATIVE mean, CONSERVE and PROTECT the AMERICANS,
against further ABUSES from anyone, WITHIN OR FOREIGN,
WE will see a GOVERNMENT who SERVE the best INTEREST of the UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA FIRST. WE will see a group of fine and smart people running the money wisely,
with CAREFUL restraint. JUST YOU WAIT AND SEE.

@ bees —

Because no con candidate for the House or the Senate will commit to making any spending cuts, I see no reason to expect that they will actually “run the money wisely.”

And given that they did not run the wisely money the last time, what makes you think this time will be any different?

@ilovebeeswarzone: #10 It’s about time someone recognized how brilliant I am. For many years I have been telling people how brilliant I am, but nobody would believe me, until now. You are brilliant for recognizing my brilliance. It takes one to know one.

How close to Winnipeg are you? My son is in the Air Force and will be transferring there in January. I will be moving out of the Philadelphia area at the end of January and visiting family on my way out to the northwest mountains I want to settle in. It would be great if our two great minds could get together.

@John ryan: #9 aare the 80+% of American Jews who are liberal and vote democratic all mentally ill?

When I read your question it made me ask myself what news media the Jews are reading and listening to. If it is the propaganda media I can understand why they have been lead astray like sheep. It would be interesting to find out where they get their information.

B-Rob, they did not commit, but they know the mess they will get and to commit before researching the true bottom of the abusive spending done already,that will have to be dealt with seriously, before they commit to the people who will know and thrust their actions;
AND It surely be better than what you have now, on every level. bye

SMORGASBORD:I always told you about your mind being great, and I’m glad that you will travel for your own pleasure this time, and you will enjoy the visit of your son, in WINNIPEG,and
the NORTH OUEST SPECTACULAR side of CANADA, have a great vacation, bye

John Ryan, THE jewish people will vote consevative this time for sure, bye

BRob said:

I cannot speak for Greg, but if you took a survey of my actual positions, you would conclude that I am very much a moderate in the George Voinovich mode.

A nice, simple way of stating that you stand for nothing. Moderates are generally defined as people unwilling to stand behind principle, and as such, relegate themselves to the middle, neither for, nor against, whatever the issue of the day is. You sir, are no moderate.

You can call me a ‘con’ or whatever other name you choose, but I stand on a principle founded in the Declaration, and set forth in the Constitution. I have sworn an oath at one time to uphold and defend it, and I still hold myself to that oath.

If you want to know why this country’s political system is broken, just read the fact-bereft pages of these blog comments, then check out Daily Kos: you are opposite sides of the same counterfeit coin.

The difference is that we conservatives actually have a document, put forth at our country’s founding, that backs us up. What you call opposite sides of a counterfeit coin, I call a fight for the heart of the country, and the resolve to see it as it was envisioned. What historic document do you have that backs up your positions?

And as for being fact-bereft, as you claim us to be, your blinders are surely on as each and every one of us has made numerous postings linking factual evidence to support our claims and thoughts. How many times have you been beat up on here by Mata, Ace, Skookum or one of the others? Facts seem to be somewhat missing in your tirades on issues, and all you end up doing is repeating the same false claims over and over, as if that somehow makes your claims right.

John, he makes the same LIBERAL claims over and over.
Yet even he understands how bad the liberal label is and lies to himself about his views and where they place him on the political spectrum. Liberals are masters of self delusion as they keep proving over and over.

@Hard Right:

May I add that he also repeats his blather that had been debunked months ago, Aye catches him all the time. Hope he recycles his bottles and cans as well, they get crushed, broken, melted and changed, kind of like his points of debate. 😉

@ johngalt —

You wrote

I stand on a principle founded in the Declaration, and set forth in the Constitution.

Not quite. You stand on a “principle” you THINK is found in the Declaration and Constitution. Which is what I find most entertaining about conservatives. To quote one commentator, tea bagger types frequently take positions that are actually in opposition to what is written in the Constitution — they do not even agree with the plain text of the Constitution. Which is why your side wants to rewrite the Constitution to address abortion, gay marriage, take away birthright citizenship for SOME PEOPLE born in this country, and remove the voters ability to chose their own senators.

And I see you dodged altogether my point: the right wing is engaging in the same nutty behavior that the left was rightfully ridiculed for a few years ago. I mean, how much did I hear about you cons whining about the “SEIU thugs beating up a Black man” (as if his race is relevant to anything) , now we have this cowardly attack by TWO MEN on a woman!

What the h*ll is wrong with you cons today? Pushing a woman to the ground, putting her head on a curb and stepping on her head? And what is the con response so far? Silence . . . . That speaks volumes.

And, johngalt, as a moderate, I (and all other moderates) stand for one simple concept — take the best ideas from the left and the right and throw the rest of the b.s. out the window. Moderates believe in conserving tax dollars (unlike liberals) and don’t believe in borrowing from the Chinese to close the revenue gap left by a tax cut (unlike cons). Moderates and independents are the fulcrum of this system; we hold the balance of power, not the nutty cons or the wacky left. Y’all have to convince US that we should follow your lead. Hijinks like this assault, the bizarre signs at teabagger rallies, and the con refusal to address spending as you argue for tax cuts . . . these are the kinds of things that make the moderates of both parties look at your side like you are a bunch of nuts — the Cindy Sheehans of the right.

@BRob

You are completely and utterly wrong in your theory of what a conservative is and what they want, or stand for.

We stand for limited, smaller government, using the restrictions set forth in the Constitution as our guideline. We don’t want the Constitution to be rewritten to include language that is missing, in our opinion. We want the literal text of the Constitution to be just that. The literal text. We don’t wish to include people’s health care under the “general welfare” clause, or any other legislation that progressives try to fit under that umbrella. Your claims about conservative stances imply we wish the courts to interpret the Constitution, giving wide, liberal definitions to what it says. The facts are that conservatives haven’t used the courts to rule in laws by a court’s verdict. Again, a progressive is claiming the conservatives are doing something that they are happily engaged in themselves.

As for violence on either side, the conservatives have a long, long way to go to equal the violence perpetrated by the left during the past few years. Did you cackle with glee when you found out about the RPaul supporters restraining that protester? Probably. As I don’t know the specifics, and I’m sure you don’t either, of that particular case, I will refrain from commenting on it further. It has been noted in another thread the numerous cases of violence and violent rhetoric from the left though, and the total amount of acts from the left in this regard is staggering. Your implication that we conservatives support the recent act of violence is absurd.

You are not a moderate, despite your claims to the contrary. You continually support the ideas of the left that lead to bigger government, continually rail against tax cuts, and even your talk of cutting spending rings hollow since your support for Obamacare and the Stimulus defies your claims. You speak of us not wanting to cut spending, yet conveniently disregard our calls for disbanding federal agencies, and repealing the money-pit that is Obamacare. You discount anything we say on the subject if it affects something you deem necessary.

We conservatives wish for the smaller, limited government, as it was meant to be, leaving the local and state issues to the states. We wish our government to be limited by the Constitution in what they do, and on the flip side, do what the Constitution directs them to do.

You are a progressive, whether you claim to be or not. You wish to have what you deem are good ideas put into law, regardless of their running afoul of the Constitution, which you have stretched the meaning of passages and phrases here in the past to make them fit. You support the programs that grow our government. You support the programs that force the borrowing of wealth from other countries. You support the programs that place more people on the dole of the federal dockets. You are a statist, despite your claims of moderation.

I stand for people living for themselves, not forcing others to become enslaved so that another may be cared for. You stand for ‘cradle to grave’ caring by our federal government for everyone, as witnessed by your support for the progressive social programs. Your claims of being a ‘moderate’ to the contrary, your support for the above mentioned programs belies a tendency toward liberal/progressive ideology.

@johngalt:

Did you cackle with glee when you found out about the RPaul supporters restraining that protester?

Well johngalt, I believe he did. More information has been drifting out about that incident as the morning wanes.

Still doesn’t come close to the beating that man took or for the couple that was smacked around that same night by the SEIU thugs. What’s different is, conservatives have already spoken out against any violence, and police are actively investigating. When the incident happened with the union thugs, it seemed like it took forever to light a fire under that investigation, they almost got off Scott free.

Then there was that cannibal incident, the bitten off finger. 🙄

Lauren Valle, aka, poor woman that was beat to a pulp by redneck Paul supporters:

Weekly Open Thread

Braindead-rob sure thought he had something on the Cons with that vid. His faux outrage is amusing. He kept changing the story on the woman’s inuries and what really happened. He even bypassed his own hypocrisy by ignoring how Conservatives have been the victims of leftist assaults for some time before this, much to the glee of the left.
As for our “silence” you jackass, what silence? You clearly don’t go to Conserative sites or you wouldn’t try to pass off such a blatant lie. Even here people criticized the “stomper” for what he did.

BTW Braindead-rob, abortion IS NOT a Constitutional right, nor is gay marriage. As for taking away citizenship from people born here, if they weren’t born to American citizens then guess what? They aren’t a citizen either. Google is your friend. Try using it and not DUNG or puffho.

For everyone who wants to see something that explains liberals like Braindead-rob, go to the site linked below and look for THIS IS WHAT DENIAL IS ALL ABOUT, AFTER ALL on Oct 22nd
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/

She is a psychiatrist and will give you far more insight into the left than they themselves possess.

@B-Rob: #28 Moderates don’t call us “tea baggers.” After I found out what the term meant I don’t like to hear it or read it. I didn’t want to write it in this reply, but I had to so you would know what I am referring to. Those of you who don’t know what the term refers to and are high in moral values won’t want to find out what it means. I wish i didn’t know. Liberals always try to bring us down to their level.

When you use that term it is telling all of us tea partiers what kind of language you use and how far liberal you are. You probably can’t walk in a straight line because you lean so far to the left, and your left leg has to be much shorter than the right. Does yours tingle like Chris Mathews’ does each time he hears King Obama speak?

Speaking the truth vs hiding the truth.

I see ideas twisted everyday.
The left claims to want more freedoms.
But whose freedom matters?

So, a writer on the right wrote of our right to health care:

The “core value” of the Left is the embrace of “positive rights.”

They believe citizens have a “right” to health care, affordable housing, and various other benefits.

The State has a moral duty to use compulsive force to secure these “rights” for everyone.

If “free” health care is seized by government and distributed as it sees fit, the medical industry will become first indentured, and then nationalized, without regard to the will of its members.
In a land where food is “free,” farmers are slaves.

When rights are balanced against each other, in an equation resolved by the use of compulsive (governmental) force, those who belong to opposing groups are your enemies.

Your prosperity comes with their defeat.

And Obama said this to some voters:
‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.’