Spicoli: “I think we’re past that point in human evolution where there’s such a thing as winning wars”

Yeah the human race has come a long way since the Falklands War. The human race has evolved so much since 1982.

Tell that to John Wayne, Charlton Heston, Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger…

..Clint Eastwood, Jimmy Stewart, Bruce Willis..

It is possible to remain civil without promoting the absurd as equal to the rational. Sometimes, despite the last several decades of politically correct indoctrination, we would do well to be blunt–to calling nutbags nutbags. It’s not nice, I know. It can be stated in more gentile terms, yes. But let’s not continue to entertain the absurd.

Clearly, not all liberals are mentally-ill, in truth, I suspect very few are. Furthermore, I suspect the same number of conservatives are mental cases. Heck, maybe I am one of them!

But Liberalism itself? It has gone nutty.

Simply list the basic tenets of Liberalism–not their propaganda, but the actual policies followed by Liberal leaders and espoused by their adherents.

Some of Liberalism’s basic tenets:

1. More and more taxes
2. Bigger and Bigger Govt
3. Public School > Private school
4. Removal, err, I am sorry, selective interpretation, of the 1st and 2nd amendments (Fairness Doctrine, Hillary’s desire to have Govt controls over Internet content, Liberal infactuaution with U.N. control over the internet and their willingness to subject US citizens and military personel to UN courts, Gun Grabber’s, etc)
5. Religion of Environmentalism that permits the death of thousands (malaria vs use of DDT)

Again, content is king. Contrary to conventional wisdom, rational persuasion is the only thing that works over the long haul. Telling your opponents that they’re mentally ill or members of a cult is sure-fire way to stifle any chance of rational discussion. In other words, taking the high road is not only the more virtuous path–it’s also the most practical.

Guys, liberalism is not a mental illness or a religion; it is a political ideology. We need to critique the content of that ideology, not the mental health of those who adhere to it. We don’t like it when the left accuses us right-of-center folks of being mentally ill and rightly so.

Bill Ramey on August 6, 2007 at 8:17 PM

Bill, I somewhat disagree. I believe Liberalism was once a political ideology, but it has since decayed into a cult–a blind belief, a religion that places its adherents as Numero Uno in their own mind. Why do I say this?

Because, to be a political ideology, you have to use and respect facts, reason and logic. Liberals do not. Liberalism has degraded into a knee-jerk, emotionally unstable, group-think mindset that refuses to learn from its mistakes.

This saddens me because I do no want a single ideology to dominate America–even if it is Conservatism. All ideologies need competition. Regrettably, Liberals do not deliver on that.

Spicoli: “I think we’re past that point in human evolution where there’s such a thing as winning wars”

SOMEbody’s been peeking at the Dhemocrat party platform for this election cycle.

Think of it. This upcoming victory in the GWOT will be exclusively due to the great military, Americans, and the REPUBLICAN party. Never before in history has one political party supported a war by itself, jaw-dropping.

I agree. Let’s all put down our weapons and talk. You go first.

Guys, liberalism is not a mental illness or a religion; it is a political ideology.
Bill Ramey on August 6, 2007 at 8:17 PM

At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, some rational (albeit horrifically misguided) folks genuinely thought that centralized control could potentially be a viable economic theory. They saw the economies of scale that could be had through incorporation, and assumed that infinite collectivization might result in infinite efficiency. Back then, America’s leaders were telling people: “Don’t be swayed by the material benefits of Communism!”

But if collectivism was ever really a credible theory, it inarguably stopped being so more than a hundred years ago.

Collectivists retain beliefs founded in their inchoate desire to feel a sense of commune. But their utter rejection of (and even contempt for) any sort of spirituality or personal enterprise creates a void that can never be filled – leaving behind nothing but an insatiable craving for socioeconomic assimilation.

What collectivism degenerated into today – in the 21st freaking Century! – has nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of “ideology.” Karl Marx came up with their last idea a very, very long time ago. Any connection to objective reality was lost way back then. Today, collectivism is absolutely nothing but a cult. And trying to convert its supplicants through mere reason is a fool’s game.

We need to critique the content of that ideology, not the mental health of those who adhere to it.

I agree completely. But I sympathize with those who have had difficulty getting leftists to engage in discussion at the level of ideas, or even state ideas that recognizably comport with their actions. Still, that doesn’t reduce our side’s burden to try for, and to model, something better, does it?

Exit question: Aside from Spicoli, which Hollywood tool is going to be the first to lose a fortune pouring money into one of Chavez’s sinkholes?

I’m not sure that any of them will. These dictator-kissing fools are surpassingly stupid, but there are a lot of kinds of stupid, and I haven’t seen evidence that they’re stupid in just the way that would be required to actually risk losing their personal funds in an investment like that.

While Chavez made a speech, however, Penn stood at a distance alongside the audience, occasionally jotting down notes. He spoke only when Chavez asked the actor to say a few words.

“This guy,” Penn pointed to Chavez “He’s the full hot orator”

Dude… Give ‘em your “Jefferson thought England was, like, bogus” wrap up of the Revolutionary War while you’re down there.

I can’t remember who said it, but a former lefty said something even more ominous than “liberalism is a mental disorder.” He stated that liberalism is a religion.
I think this explains much of their mentality. Adherence to doctrine is more important than the actual results of that doctrine. And I would suggest that maybe the reliance on motives over results is a psychological defense mechanism built up over years of blatantly failed doctrine. Conservatives do not have to ignore the outcomes because the outcomes-of low taxes, school choice (including home schooling), strong families, free markets, emphasis on personal responsibility and accountability, the Second Amendment, etc.-work, and have been shown to work time and time again, place after place. Liberalism can make no such claim.

Hence his motives are different from Bush’s even if their policies are putatively the same.
Bill Ramey on August 6, 2007 at 6:03 PM

Bill you’ve got a nugget of understanding there. In a most general sense it’s the difference between inputs and outputs.

When switching to C-Span coverage a debate with a pol pontificating about the motives (input) of a bill I can be sure they are leftie. If they are complaining about the actual effect (output) of a bill there will always be a ‘R’ in front of their name.

I’m still working on extracting the general from the specific on this observation, but I’m so far right that my view is obstructed.

Sean Pean invested his future with Chavez’s Screwtopia.

And is it just me, or are we all sick and tired of Sean Penn trying to look tough-scholarly-defiant-and-pissed-off all the time?

See!? I am importrant, I scowl all the time because only I know what is wrong in the wrong world and only my great acting skills can fix it! HEY! What the heck, why is there water in our boat??

Duuuuuude, just order a pizza and chill!

I’m really serious – has anybody seen a liberal explain this? This man is a REAL dictator, he’s the REAL version of the boogeyman they pretend Dubya is … yet they seem almost orgasmic about him. Why?

Because they think that he is a champion of the oppressed and the poor. Hence his motives are different from Bush’s even if their policies are putatively the same. Unlike others here, I don’t think this is hypocrisy, but just the logical outcome of rejecting classical liberalism in favor of ideologies that are either quasi-Marxist or Marxist, ideologies that have no qualms about doing whatever is necessary to bring about a proletarian revolution.

C’mon. If you can get the guys attacking me to stop attacking me then maybe I don’t need to win wars, ’cause my only other option is losing.

Hey, Sean Penn, losing is for losers. Are you a loser?

I understand that liberalism is based in hypocrisy, but this goes even beyond hypocrisy. How do they stand it?

…

It goes beyond hypocrisy and into some kind of pathology.

Professor Blather on August 6, 2007 at 3:16 PM

5 words:
Liberalism is a mental disorder.

The newly minted officers were required to swear to the slogan “Socialism or death” at the commencement ceremony.

Are you sure this wasn’t the DNC leadership at the Yearly Kos?

Tuna, you are confusing liberals with leftists. Leftists have no use for liberty or freedom. So they have no problem with dictators like Chavez. Penn is a leftist.
jihadwatcher on August 6, 2007 at 4:00 PM

Right you are jihadwatcher. Somehow I don’t think Madonna’s ex understands that either.

I’ve been using a single stereotype for both types.
Using stereotypes is much easier than thinking. But that’s a whole nuther story.

“I came here looking for a great country. I found a great country,”

Now just stay there and you will make me the worlds happiest person in the world .

It goes beyond hypocrisy and into some kind of pathology.

Professor Blather on August 6, 2007 at 3:16 PM

It can’t be cured. It can only be defeated. Good education is the only answer. That’s why they are the suppressors and the opressors, the exact opposite of progressives, in the true meaning of the word.