Is Liberalism a Form of Autism?

 

After reading a recent article posted on Autisable titled “Asperger’s = Atheist?”, it also made me wonder if liberalism, in general, is a mental disorder that can be found on the autism spectrum.  By liberals, I don’t necessarily mean people who simply vote Democrat.  Rather, I’m referring to leftists who have really lewd, extreme, off-the-wall beliefs.  For example, people who worship Obama like he’s their God despite the fact that everything he has done in his 1 1/2 years as president has been a failure, as if they are proud that the failures have taken place (not to mention their only argument supporting him is that anyone who disagrees with him is a ‘racist’).  Then there are the people who believe that it’s unjust for companies to grow too large or for people to become too enriched, yet they have no problem with a super large federal government and 90% income tax rates.  Then there are the ones who claim the handful of sex scandal cases in the Catholic Church are an abomination and that the practice of Christianity should be limited because of its “discriminatory” practice, like not legalizing gay marriage and abortion.  However, they don’t seem to have a problem with Muslims blowing up buildings, terrorizing towns and other countries, beating and killing women that don’t cover themselves in public or sin against Allah and stoning anyone perceived to be a homosexual even by an iota to death.  There are other things, such as their belief that humans are equivalent to other animals, yet they are the ones who somehow are capable of destroying the earth as if the earth is fragile; and how they believe illegal aliens and terrorists should have more rights in this country than even actual citizens.

As someone with Aspergers, I would not correlate a relationship between Asperger’s and liberalism.  Rather, I would classify liberalism as its own unique mental disorder.  Not many people consider liberalism to be an actual mental disorder because it’s never classified or analyzed as such in our wonderful educational institutions.  It baffles me though how liberals will not only dissent from common sense, but will hold anyone who disagrees with their crazy world views in high contempt.  Okay, any group of people is going to argue in favor of their beliefs because everyone has their own beliefs and is entitled to them, but try to argue with liberals on why they think and believe what they think and believe.  If you ask them, for example, what has Obama done that has helped America or why Marxism is an ideal philosophy to follow.  They may present reasons for these questions, but they are house-of-cards arguments at best.  When you try to present facts to knock down the house-of-cards to get them to provide more convincing answers, they don’t answer those questions.  In fact, they try to dodge the question and bring up some stupid irrelevant comment.  For example, you want to know from a liberal why Obama is such a great president who is good for America.  You even go as far as pointing out facts such as how every policy Obama has created has further damaged the country by continuously running up the deficit, imposing draconian regulations that are meant to punish businesses for being successful and benefit only the federal government, has hurt our relations overseas with our allies, and has considerably weakened our national security.  Do you want to know what Obama has done that is so good for this country because the other side, who supports him, must have an answer that is reasonable, right?  Wrong!  All you’re going to get is some verbiage like “Bush is a warmonger and and you’re a racist if you don’t support Obama!”  This isn’t just psychobabble coming from stoned college kids who upkeep blogs on the Internet either; you hear this kind of nonsense from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and MSNBC news anchor Chris Matthews.

The biggest problem is this mental disorder has plagued our educational institutions and our media.  Kids are taught daily that America has been the most vile and corrupt country in the history of the world, Christianity should be shunned because Christians are fascists (while Islam is nothing more than a religion of peace), the earth is fragile and humans have been destroying it for the past three generations, capitalism is evil because people become rich and greedy, people who are for securing our borders are racists and should be fined and arrested (as opposed to people who actually enter this country illegally), using corn to fuel cars is an adequate substitute to oil despite the rise in food prices, and sex should be a daily activity encouraged in school by the distribution of condoms.

So, this may have come off as a political speech, but I believe it is more than that.  If a group of people have outlandish, extreme, radical views that they are unable to defend by reasoning and logic when challenged, then I do believe that said people have a mental disorder.  Of course, I probably wouldn’t be writing this if I didn’t feel it was a major issue.  Liberalism has plagued Europe and is plaguing America.  The only end result is misery.

———-

Response to this post – Here.

Guest Submitted Post

Guest Submitted Post

Read some Guest Submitted Posts Below. Want to share your story? Read our Guidelines to Submit your Post: https://autisable.com/about-us/guest-post-guidelines/

190 thoughts on “Is Liberalism a Form of Autism?

  • July 13, 2010 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    @liberalmaverick@xanga – BP oil spill: I was talking about how the spill happened in the first place? Why did the oil rig blow up? From the strain of too many government regulations? Also, I’m not sure what local offshore drilling has to do with this.

    Accidents happen.  Nothing is failsafe, so controls are put in place to try and prevent these sorts of things from happening.  Your argument that the oil spill was the result of the failure of capitalism is laughable at best.  I could easily turn around and say that the Chernobyl disaster was the result of the failure of socialism.  On a side note, I could argue that since the oil industry is one of the most government-regulated industries (e.g. we can’t drill where we want, no new refineries can be built, etc.), then yes, the additional extravagant and burdensome costs placed on oil companies can cut into what could have been spent on quality control.  Now I’m not saying that’s the reason why the accident took place, but I’m not ruling it out either.  What does offshore drilling have to do with this?  Well the fact that government regulation prohibits drilling within a certain distance of coastal areas just in case an accident happens and oil washes up on the shore.  However, the problem is an oil spill is much more difficult to clean up in deep water than it is in more shallow water.  Well, the attempt to protect the beaches certainly backfired, didn’t it?

    Financial crisis: The idea that it was caused by lending to minorities is a conservative lie.

    Yeah, according to disgruntled NY Times columnists like Paul Krugman, who is notorious for liberal BS.

    Also, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have not been true government agencies since the late 1960s, and they were not the “root source” of the crisis.

    Fannie and Freddie are government-sponsored entities.  And yes, Fannie and Freddie were the root cause because they were the leaders in pushing for middle to low income families to buy up houses they couldn’t afford, which lead to many of them defaulting and foreclosing on their homes.  Fannie and Freddie did this to try to meet the goals of the HUD, which were pushed by President Clinton back in 1999.

    Enron: They might be dead, but who gets to restore the pension plans for all the people who lost their savings to their machinations? Don’t say government – that’s socialism.

    Again, we don’t live in a perfect world.  You make an investment, and you either win big or lose big.  It’s unfortunate that the people working for Enron lost their pensions and whatnot, but at the same time it wasn’t like they couldn’t have pulled out their pensions when they suspected something was wrong (unless they didn’t want to pay a 10% early withdrawal tax penalty).  I do agree that securities laws do need to be put in place to protect investors from loss due to fraud without being overbearing on businesses.  While we’re at it though, tell me: who gets to restore all the money that the government is blindly spending unchecked like a bunch of retards?  Taxpayers do, in the form of cutting off their limbs.

    Really? I haven’t seen any health insurance companies get punished for jilting consumers. It’s kinda hard when they ALL do that. When people die from bad products, sure the company might get punished, but will that bring those dead people back? Who can effectively prevent companies from screwing over consumers to make a profit in the first place? Companies, especially big ones, usually aren’t shaking in fear over consumer backlash when they know consumers have nowhere else to go. In many cases, companies will pay their fines and penalties because they know it’s cheaper to do that than to not screw over consumers. Then what?

    There you go making huge generalizations and creating strawmen again.  Regardless, so you argue against private companies in that some of them are big oligopolies that don’t care to screw people over, and you think the federal government running the entire health insurance industry is the solution?  Well I’ll tell you this: The federal government certainly wouldn’t be shaking in fear over consumer/taxpayer backlash when they know consumers have no where else to go (because it will run all of alternatives out of business).  This current government has proven just that by the amount of contempt the people running it continue to show for the American people.  Worst yet is you can’t file a lawsuit against the federal government if you feel you’re being wronged.   Your major fallacy is you don’t like private industry because there are oligopolies that people are forced to buy from because of the lack of alternatives, yet you would be content with a huge monopoly that doesn’t know jack about running any business running the health care industry.  That doesn’t make logical sense.  I mean, wouldn’t the better alternative be to have more health insurance companies, big and small, actively competing against each other to provide better services for a more affordable price?  That is capitalism.

    Sure, there’s plenty of government waste. That doesn’t compare to companies actively putting consumers in danger for their own bottom line. Btw, I have never heard of politicians spending taxpayer dollars on a Rolls Royce or a private jet.

    Go look up information on Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY).  He used taxpayer money to buy a Rolls Royce while he failed to pay income tax on a number of rental properties he owned in New York.  Politicians use private jets all the time, and yes they are funded by taxpayer dollars.  Plenty of government waste?  More like 13 trillion dollars of it!  Most of it is just that – waste.  What companies actively put consumers in danger for their own bottom line?

    It’s not just the number of big corporations vs. other businesses. An oligopoly is defined not just on the basis of how many competitors there are but the extent to which market share is divided amongst them.  If there are 100 companies in a given field but 1 of them has 70% 
    market share, that’s not a competitive market. Yeah, there could be a gazillion mom and pop stores – hooray! So what? Everyone still goes to Wal-Mart. You might say that Wal-Mart deserves the most business. Maybe, but that’s because its “competitors” are unable to compete. If competitors are inherently unable to compete, their existence is basically irrelevant.

    Okay, yeah sure, Wal-Mart is a dominant company and the world’s largest retailer, but its competitors are not just “mom & pop” stores.  Wal-Mart also competes with other LARGE CORPORATE retail chains, such as Target, Best Buy, Lowes, Home Depot, Barnes & Noble, Kohl’s, Bed Bath & Beyond, Tire Kingdom, major grocery store chains, etc.  Wal-Mart started out as a small mom & pop store back in the days when companies like Sears and Montgomery Ward were dominating the market share and thus made it very difficult to compete.  Now where are those two companies today?  Sears only exists in what I like to call B-rated malls whereas Montgomery Ward is nothing more than an online catalog retailer.  I’m sure Wal-Mart will suffer the same fate someday when another retailer will outperform it.  Even the South Park episode that was meant to make fun of Wal-Mart illustrated that point.

    Shareholders have to approve stuff. Whoopee. Shareholders are usually rich (at least, the ones that actually own enough shares to make a difference). Almost all of the people companies screw over on a regular basis are not major shareholders. If they were, they obviously wouldn’t allow their own company to screw them over. So, how does this help regular people?

    It doesn’t matter if they’re rich or not.  Companies get merged/consolidated because they want to be, and companies that decide to merge/consolidate with other companies only go after companies that will benefit them in the long run; in other words, they only go after companies that are making profits.  When a company merges with another, they also assume whatever liabilities and losses that company has.  And again, companies that don’t want to be taken over can always drive those companies off by several different means, legal injunction being one of them.

    You keep harping on insurance companies competing across state lines. Liberals have good reasons for being against it, but I’m curious to see what would happen. Luckily for you competing across state lines is in Obamacare (Section 1333), so we’ll have the chance to see it implemented.

    I don’t see how that will do any good if the only “insurance company” will be the federal government.

    Pretty much all of those industries are oligopolies! At least on a regional level. Okay, maybe I’ll give you accounting and legal services. Again, it’s important to look at how market share is divided.

    We’re talking about alternatives here; not market share.  Keep in mind also that many oligopolies are created because of government regulation.  That’s why people have a really hard time entering the energy industry; all the incremental start-up costs they face, which is entirely burdensome considering that companies that first spring up typically don’t profit for the first five years.

    As for the federal government, I think a key point many people forget is that government is us. In a democracy, the government answers to us, in a more direct and effective way than any corporation ever could. And the big difference between government and corporations is that in a corporation, you have to buy your votes, but in government, everyone gets one vote. Which system do you think is really more conducive to answering the needs of all the people, rich and poor?

    First of all, the US government is a republic; not a democracy.  Second, if you think the government is us, then you are delusional or just haven’t been keeping up with current events.  Lawmakers are supposed to only serve limited terms so they can go back to society and live under the laws which they created.  Is that happening?  Nope.  Instead, lawmakers are making careers out of being politicians and are even granting themselves immunity rights to certain laws so they don’t care whom those laws will affect.  Who cares if you have to buy votes in a corporation, especially since there’s a chance you’ll profit off of those purchases?  I imagine most people who buy shares don’t care as much about getting to vote for board members as they do for building their portfolios.  Which system is more conductive to answering the needs of all the people?  It’s certainly not the government.  A corporation, or any business for that matter, depends on its customers to meet its goals.  If the customers are not happy, then the business suffers.  If the business doesn’t suffer by other people seeking alternatives, it will suffer by lawsuits.  The government, however, doesn’t have to worry about that.  No one competes against the federal government and no one can file suit against it.  This current government especially shows nothing but contempt for its constituents.  The majority of Americans did not want ObamaCare, yet the government told Americans to fuck off and passed it anyways.  The vice president of the US goes as far as calling someone who wants taxes lowered a “smartass”.  Obama and his ilk never won in the realm of ideas; they won by means of intimidation and manipulation.  

    Ronald Reagan said “In this current crisis, government is NOT the solution to our problem; government IS the problem”, and he was right.  The policies implemented during the 80s helped the US economy flourish out of the severe recession of the 70s.  

    I firmly believe if any institution needs to be regulated, controlled, and limited, it’s the federal government.  There are checks and balances implemented by the Constitution, but politicians are finding ways to get around them.  Way too much fraud goes on in Washington unchallenged and unchecked.  The US Treasury, particularly the Federal Reserve, never gets audited.  Tax cheats and other scandalous villains fill key roles that affect the lives of every American citizen.  Lawmakers should be limited to one term and one term only, and they should not be granted legal immunities for ANY law.  They create the laws, they should be able to live under them.  Supreme Court justices should also be elected and have limited terms.  Spending and budgetary policies should be reformed to prevent runaway spending from taking place, which leads to high taxes and high inflation.  Welfare programs should be eliminated because they do opposite of their intended purpose.  The federal government should be placed in a position where it relies on the well-being of the private sector and individual wealth to run efficiently.  A large government is a dangerous and inefficient government.  If you need an example, see Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela.    

    Reply
  • June 27, 2010 at 6:04 pm
    Permalink

    I can tell that this discussion is getting nowhere…

    BP oil spill: I was talking about how the spill happened in the first place?  Why did the oil rig blow up?  From the strain of too many government regulations?  Also, I’m not sure what local offshore drilling has to do with this.

    Financial crisis: The idea that it was caused by lending to minorities is a conservative lie.

    Also, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have not been true government agencies since the late 1960s, and they were not the “root source” of the crisis.

    Enron: They might be dead, but who gets to restore the pension plans for all the people who lost their savings to their machinations?  Don’t say government – that’s socialism.

    “Your reasoning that legit businesses that go into business for profit
    just to screw everyone over is a major fallacy on your part.  Yes, some
    businesses will screw people over, but those businesses are punished by
    the consumer and the people running it are thrown in jail if they commit
    fraud.”

    Really?  I haven’t seen any health insurance companies get punished for jilting consumers.  It’s kinda hard when they ALL do that.  When people die from bad products, sure the company might get punished, but will that bring those dead people back?  Who can effectively prevent companies from screwing over consumers to make a profit in the first place?  Companies, especially big ones, usually aren’t shaking in fear over consumer backlash when they know consumers have nowhere else to go.  In many cases, companies will pay their fines and penalties because they know it’s cheaper to do that than to not screw over consumers.  Then what?

    “BTW, what do you think of
    certain politicians spending your tax dollars on a Rolls Royce or five
    private jets when they just took the money from you without you
    receiving any consideration in return?”

    Sure, there’s plenty of government waste.  That doesn’t compare to companies actively putting consumers in danger for their own bottom line.  Btw, I have never heard of politicians spending taxpayer dollars on a Rolls Royce or a private jet.

    “Your other fallacy is that
    you think all private businesses are big publicly traded corporations,
    when in fact they make up about 20% of all businesses in America.  Also,
    again, you clearly have know knowledge of how businesses run.
     Otherwise, you would know that mergers and consolidations are performed
    by a majority vote of approval from the board of directors AND the
    shareholders from BOTH companies.  Unwanted takeovers are usually
    thwarted.  And yes, if health insurance companies were allowed to
    compete across state lines, entering the health insurance industry would
    be a lot easier.”

    It’s not just the number of big corporations vs. other businesses.  An oligopoly is defined not just on the basis of how many competitors
    there are but the extent to which market share is divided amongst them. 
    If there are 100 companies in a given field but 1 of them has 70%
    market share, that’s not a competitive market.  Yeah, there could be a gazillion mom and pop stores – hooray!  So what?  Everyone still goes to Wal-Mart.  You might say that Wal-Mart deserves the most business.  Maybe, but that’s because its “competitors” are unable to compete.  If competitors are inherently unable to compete, their existence is basically irrelevant.

    Shareholders have to approve stuff.  Whoopee.  Shareholders are usually rich (at least, the ones that actually own enough shares to make a difference).  Almost all of the people companies screw over on a regular basis are not major shareholders.  If they were, they obviously wouldn’t allow their own company to screw them over.  So, how does this help regular people?

    You keep harping on insurance companies competing across state lines.  Liberals have good reasons for being against it, but I’m curious to see what would happen.  Luckily for you competing across state lines is in Obamacare (Section 1333), so we’ll have the chance to see it implemented.

    “I can think of several industries where there
    is plenty of competition: Food & Beverage, retail, hospitality,
    accounting services, legal services, grocery, entertainment, engineering
    services, construction, and many others.  Your problem is some
    industries are oligopolies.  Well would you rather have one huge
    monopoly (the federal government) provide all the products and services?
     You can’t argue that would be a disaster.”

    Pretty much all of those industries are oligopolies!  At least on a regional level.  Okay, maybe I’ll give you accounting and legal services.  Again, it’s important to look at how market share is divided.

    As for the federal government, I think a key point many people forget is that government is us.  In a democracy, the government answers to us, in a more direct and effective way than any corporation ever could.  And the big difference between government and corporations is that in a corporation, you have to buy your votes, but in government, everyone gets one vote.  Which system do you think is really more conducive to answering the needs of all the people, rich and poor?

    Reply
  • June 26, 2010 at 2:30 pm
    Permalink

    @liberalmaverick@xanga – If you think lassez-faire has failed society, then you really need to get outside of your college campus.  How does the BP oil spill have to do with how bad lassez-faire is?  The reason why it’s such a disaster is because of all the red tape involved, again.  There were 13 countries that wanted to assist in helping clean up the spill, but Obama denied them.  Govenor Bobby Jindel even had a way to clean up the spill, but he can’t get federal approval for it.  Not to mention that if local offshore drilling was not outlawed, the spill would have been way easier to clean up.  I guess the government’s attempt to save the environment backfired on them in that regard.  As for the financial crisis, again, more government regulation.  A law was passed that forced mortgage companies to lend money particularly to poor minorities who most likely would not be able to pay them back.  Also, the root source of the financial crisis came from fannie mae and freddie mac, which are GOVERNMENT financial agencies.  As for Enron, I’m not going to defend them other than the fact that they’re virtually non-existent as a result of their fraud and so is their auditing firm.  There has been far more intentional fraudulent activity that occurs in the federal government and state and local governments that goes unchecked and affects WAY more people.  Remember the House Bank Scandal from the early 90s?  And how come a tax cheat like Tim Geithner gets to run the US treasury when he would have been thrown in jail if he was a corporate CEO (that of course didn’t contribute to democrat campaigns)?  As for health insurance, I already explained this in a previous post and I don’t feel like doing it again.  Your reasoning that legit businesses that go into business for profit just to screw everyone over is a major fallacy on your part.  Yes, some businesses will screw people over, but those businesses are punished by the consumer and the people running it are thrown in jail if they commit fraud.  You clearly prove that you have no clue how businesses, particularly corporations, run and what checks are placed on them, and it sounds like you get all of your information from either your defunct college professors and/or Keith Olbermann.  BTW, what do you think of certain politicians spending your tax dollars on a Rolls Royce or five private jets when they just took the money from you without you receiving any consideration in return?

    Your other fallacy is that you think all private businesses are big publicly traded corporations, when in fact they make up about 20% of all businesses in America.  Also, again, you clearly have know knowledge of how businesses run.  Otherwise, you would know that mergers and consolidations are performed by a majority vote of approval from the board of directors AND the shareholders from BOTH companies.  Unwanted takeovers are usually thwarted.  And yes, if health insurance companies were allowed to compete across state lines, entering the health insurance industry would be a lot easier.  

    I can think of several industries where there is plenty of competition: Food & Beverage, retail, hospitality, accounting services, legal services, grocery, entertainment, engineering services, construction, and many others.  Your problem is some industries are oligopolies.  Well would you rather have one huge monopoly (the federal government) provide all the products and services?  You can’t argue that would be a disaster.

    I did not imply that we should have no government.  Some regulation is good, but at the same time some regulation is bad.  Examples of good regulation include not allowing businesses to commit fraud and protecting patents and copyrights.  Examples of bad regulation include ones that force legit businesses to go under just because the government thinks it can do a better job of running said businesses or to save endangered field mice.

    Reply
  • June 26, 2010 at 6:01 am
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – I really cannot believe that you would continue to defend the idea of laissez-faire private markets even in the face of the reality that it has failed society.  BP oil spill, financial collapse, Enron, health insurance, etc. are just the most visible of private market failures.  The reason is simple: private, for-profit companies are just that: for PROFIT.  If the good of the people happens to be good for profit, all is well, but if it happens that making profits requires screwing over the people, as it does in the above examples, then guess which side these companies are going to choose?  It sure as hell won’t be the people.

    You keep bringing up competition, competition, competition.  Well guess what?  Has it ever occurred to you that one of the main ways companies “compete” is by growing bigger, and merging/swallowing other companies, until there are only a few companies in the entire market?  And then buying off politicians so they can get government favors?  I love how you said the government was the reason why there wasn’t more competition in health insurance.  You really think that government is the only reason getting into the health insurance industry isn’t as easy as pie?  I’m sure if you or I tried to start a health insurance company, Aetna and Wellpoint would squash us like a bug.

    I have a hard time thinking of a major industry in our day-to-day lives that is NOT an oligopoly.  Maybe restaurants, and even then only in certain areas, like Chinatown in SF.  Most industries that we see on a daily basis are oligopolies.  That’s not because the government made it so; it’s because it’s easier to compete when there’s less competition.

    And I love how you bring up Judeo-Christian roots as the reason for order in our society.  Yeah, why don’t we take away all laws and see how long our Judeo-Christian values will stop vandals from smashing into your house.  You do know the concept of government is older than either Judaism or Christianity (or any other religion), right?  Not to mention that religion too is full of violence and chaos.  Haven’t you ever read the Book of Joshua?

    Reply
  • June 15, 2010 at 12:23 am
    Permalink

    @k_Skrap_moua@xanga – I respect what you have to say, but you are off.

    I’ve seen cops pull my Hispanic friends aside and speak to them while I’ve seen at the same time, white teenagers doing something stupid.  Did the cop leave my Hispanic friend alone to tend to the teenager?  No.  I’m not saying all cops will take advantage of this.  However, with the immigration issue so bad here in Arizona, specifically somewhere so close to the border, who is the cop going to think is an immigrant, a white teenager or a Hispanic teenager?  I can tell you there are some bigots in the TPD and will chose to question the Hispanic.  Once I see someone who is not Hispanic be questioned about their citizenship, I will think differently of this new bill.

    And I love to eat with chopsticks. 

    Reply
    • September 7, 2017 at 10:12 pm
      Permalink

      WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE ARTICLE. THE ARTICLE IS TALKING ABOUT LIBERALISM AND THE COMPARISON TO AUTISM AND YOUR TALKING ABOUT RACE. THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF DODGING THE NARRATIVE

      Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 9:40 pm
    Permalink

    @Sirius_Fan_Girl@xanga – That’s what liberals like to do though; they like to twist what something says to make it seem more hostile than it actually is.  Take Media Matters for example.  Bill O’Reilly went to a restaurant in Harlem called Sylvia’s and he said that he thought it was just like any other restaurant.  Media Matters spun what Bill said to try to make him sound like a racist.  That’s exactly what the liberals on this site are doing; they’re spinning what I wrote to make it sound like I’m blatantly attacking people with autism/aspergers.

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 1:17 pm
    Permalink

    I can’t even believe someone would post something so rediculous?? A mental disorder?? Liberalism is a way of thinking, living, and believing, as is anyone who is conservative or somewhere in between. I am extremely, extremely liberal, and I am proud of what I believe in because I think it’s the right way to be. A moral way to be. BUT… although I disagree on most things conservative, I don’t think they are suffering from a mental disorder. I believe people’s beliefs come from the life they have lived and the things theyhave seen… it’s easy to see how this is so. It’s an insult to those who suffer from the diseases of mental disorder to confuse it with the opinions and perspectives of people. They are completely two different things.

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 12:38 pm
    Permalink

    Its most definitely a form of autism except for the fact that liberals are pro-abortion and pro gay marriage. And that solidifies it, liberalism= a extreme from of autism

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 12:14 pm
    Permalink

    @explosive@xanga – I suppose it’s a libertarian sort of site. Everyone’s opinion can be shown even if it’s extreme, and if it’s very different from something they’ve seen before it will make the front page in order to broaden the mindsets of readers and give them diverse points of view. Whether or not the opinions are ignorant or crazy.

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 12:13 pm
    Permalink

    While I don’t believe it is a mental disorder, I do find liberalism illogical in most cases. I can see what they’re trying to say but I think they’re wrong and are missing some flaws in their theories.

    And guys, this doesn’t insult autism. The author said it is NOT the same thing but that liberalism is a mental disorder OF ITS OWN. Which isn’t necessarily a nice thing to say either, but it cuts autism out of the discussion. Autism is just what sparked the thought.

    I feel you could have used more specific examples to support this… like examples of what someone with liberal views would say in response to questions, and showing how this fits into the definition of mental disorder. 🙂

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 9:06 am
    Permalink

    I’d have to ask the same thing about the extreme right. 🙂

    This speaks to the whole ideology and agenda of the xanga team, if something this ignorant can make it onto the front page.

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 9:01 am
    Permalink

    @chaospet@xanga – Sure, I’m labeled an “epistemological relativists” because i believe that “sufficient evidence for many people is relative”.  … but on further thought, why are you mentioning epistemology again?  I’m still trying to find out why i’m a epistemological relativists when really I’m a foundationalist, when it comes to epistemology.

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 8:31 am
    Permalink

    @k_Skrap_moua@xanga – When you say that evidence is relative, you are appealing to epistemological relativism, by definition.

    Yes, most PETA members are most likely liberal. That’s utterly irrelevant; it does not allow you to draw conclusions about liberals, because most liberals are not PETA members. That point should be incredibly obvious. By the same token, Timothy McVeigh and most of the extremists in the Michigan Militia group who supported his tactics were conservatives. That fact OBVIOUSLY does not allow me to draw conclusions about conservatives, because most conservatives do not belong to that group.

    I am a liberal. And I already conceded that some of those are standard views held by most liberals. Read more carefully. It is on the basis of those (and some others) that I would call myself a liberal. But some of the positions on your list are clearly straw man positions; they are extreme positions that most liberals do NOT hold (some are not held by ANY liberal I have ever met in my life), tactically used to make liberalism look much more radical and extreme than it actually is.

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 7:28 am
    Permalink

    @schmidy182@xanga – Thanks for replying.  I wouldn’t argue ALL LIBERALS, but i do argue SOME LIBERALS.  And more than often that SOME are the majority few who are outspoken in my lecture halls and classroom. 

    You are right, a cop isn’t going to pull you, a white, 17-year old over and ask you for your papers.  That is, until they first find reasonable cause to pull you over, such as a traffic violation or so ( I thought you knew).  But guess what? They still have every right to still check if you are a US citizen or not.  You see, in your mindset you’re thinking;

    1.) I’m white
    2.) Most illegal immigrants are NOT white,
    3.) Therefore, that’s racial discrimination because NON-whites (or those who “look” Mexican) will be pulled over more than me because I’m white. 

    BUT GUESS WHAT?  IT’S NOT!  You only assume it is because you “think” that most illegal immigrants are NOT white like you said. Even though it is plausible that most illegal immigrants who will be deported might/will look a certain way, that is NOT the reason they are pulled over for.  The problem is, in your defense of your position, you are using the color card.

    Let’s use an example which is similar to yours. Since I’m asian, let us suppose I owned an asian restaurant and you were a customer;

    1.) I’m asian and you’re white
    2.) Our eating utensil are chopsticks and forks.  Most white people do not use chopsticks.
    3.) I see that you’re white, so I take away the chopsticks and leave you with the forks. 

    That would be dubious for me to do and think that, right?  That’s a similar thinking as yours with the recent immigration law in Arizona. 

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 6:26 am
    Permalink

    @chaospet@xanga – Well thanks for affirming/negating the “relative strawman views of liberalism”.  You said I appeal to epistemological relativism?  Actually I don’t, but i only present my questions  in that fashion because evidence for most people is relative, and if I were to quote you something, I would need to first know what standards of qualifications would suffice for you as sufficient “evidence”.  You’ve only said statistical claims.  But of which?  Only non-conservative sources?  It goes on an on..  Like your response above, “the vast majority of liberals are not members of PETA”, which is true, BUT GUESS WHAT?, I bet you the vast majority of PETA members are liberals.  But of course, you only believe this on grounds of a “statistical” census.  That’s what I mean by relative.  Some people appeal to the Associated Press, others to CNN, ..etc… no two liberals will always agree on what suffices as “evidence”. 

    Even by your standards of affirmation to1/3 of the positions above, many would say that you’re a nominal liberal.  They’re actually questions from Dennis Pragers: Are You a Liberal.  I shamelessly ripped it off ….(though I do listen to his radio station from time to time).  The positions stated are only only straw man arguments to you because you don’t “personally” like them.  You should at least admit that some views are views commonly held from your average liberal.  But of course, for you, what is “commonly held” and “average” is also in dire need of a statistical census so it can be sufficient evidence for you. 

    I was sort of thinking tho, if you have time, what makes you a liberal then?  You don’t have to answer if you feel it’s not worth your time.  But I will read. Thanks again for taking your time to answer the positions, 

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 4:45 am
    Permalink

    If I ever implied that conservatism was a form of a mental illness, you crazy, radical, myopic right wing nuts would be jumping down my throat, and calling me an un-American fascist commie. 

    Maybe that’s why the right wing has no ideas, they’re too busy with ad hominem and destructive insult hurling.

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 3:47 am
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – If you think liberals have a mental disorder, why do you portray us as writing in all caps, using AOL-isms and spelling things wrong. Shouldn’t you be more compassionate? If I were to describe you, I wouldn’t make you sound like Rainman. Why do you make fun of us in such a way?

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 3:02 am
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – You missed my point. Since most liberals are not PETA members, you cannot cite PETA as evidence for the statistical claim that most liberals believe ridiculous claims like “animal rights are more important than human rights”. Even PETA doesn’t hold that ridiculous view; in their view animal rights are on par with human rights, not more important.

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 2:30 am
    Permalink

    wow, this is just controversial for the sake of being controversial as it has no real logical substance. way to go.

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 2:20 am
    Permalink

    Whew!  Did you ever consider the mess that Bush had made of the country and the Federal government at the time Obama took over?

    I suppose that Obama signed the oil lease that let BP create their oil spill?

    This is not the place for this post!!

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 2:09 am
    Permalink

    @k_Skrap_moua@xanga – I don’t doubt that there are events like that that happen.  That doesn’t mean that every liberal thinks of him as a god.  I sure don’t.

    And overall, I avoid religion altogether.  I don’t care what you do in your house, but keep it out of the government and public schools.  I don’t care if it’s Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any of the many other religions; I don’t want it in my schools or my government.

    Also, I do disagree with SB1070.  I live in Arizona, and I see the discrimination.  A cop isn’t going to pull me, a white, 17-year old over and ask me for my papers.  I don’t necessarily disagee with the actual immigration part, but it’s the fact that I know there are going to be cops that will abuse the power to request proof of citizenship.
    And, the “racism” you point out for this bill is not a hasty generalization.  Claiming that liberal worship Obama, when the public majority doesn’t, is a hasty generalization.  Conservatives blaming the liberals and vice versa based on a small group of people from each party is a hasty generalization.

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 1:46 am
    Permalink

    @chaospet@xanga – I did not say all liberals were PETA members; I said that the things he listed were opinions from at least one of the groups I mentioned.  In this case, PETA is the group that believes animal rights are more important than human rights.

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 1:33 am
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – I’m listing what I believe, and I am a liberal. So, that’s one piece of anecdotal evidence against your silly generalizations. Note that he was making a statistical claim, and that claim is not supported by any evidence either of you have provided. Citing groups like PETA is not good evidence since, after all, the vast majority of liberals are not members of PETA. You’re the victim of confirmation bias, and obviously not interested in engaging with reality. But I can understand; straw man opponents are so much more fun!

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 1:28 am
    Permalink

    @k_Skrap_moua@xanga – Just for fun, to respond specifically to your list:

    1) Absolutely disagree. This is a very extreme version of affirmative action, and it’s not necessary.
    2) Agree. Bilingual children gain lots of demonstrable cognitive advantages. Children in most parts of the world handle learning multiple languages just fine, so I’m sure ours can too.
    3) Agree, I am opposed to the death penalty on principle. It’s barbaric, and we as a society can do better than that.
    4) Unsure. In principle a nuclear freeze would have been ideal, but it’s difficult to say whether one would have been possible in that political climate.
    5) Disagree. I have no problem with ROTC programs.
    6) Disagree; the Gulf War was probably justifiable; it was limited in scope, and it had a specific purpose. The current Iraq war is another matter.
    7) Agree. Public funds should not go to financing private schools, at least not unless they are willing to be subject to all of the same regulations that other public schools are held to.
    8) Disagree. Why would anyone think it’s “good” that particular groups donate to particular parties?
    9) Agree.
    10) Agree.
    11) Disagree, I have no problem with this. The Boy Scouts should be free to assemble where they like.
    12) Disagree, not a fan of the current tax code. Too high for many, too low for some.
    13) Disagree. Like many liberals, I am a strong supporter of civil liberties, including freedom of speech.
    14) A simplistic, silly claim – disagree.
    15) Disagree. The UN is potentially good, but usually not effective. I don’t hold the view that the US should be subservient to any outside group.
    16) Disagree; don’t have any particular strong views on this.
    17) Disagree. Late term abortions, for example, are only justifiable when the life of the mother is threatened.
    18) Agree, primarily because of the health hazard it poses to workers, and because most restaurants do not have the ventilation to create a true distinction between smoking and non-smoking areas.
    19) Agree.
    20) Agree that racial profiling is wrong – but it does not necessarily lead to the conclusion you imply.
    21) Disagree; poorly formed statement. These are all likely causal factors.
    22) Disagree. Civil liberty point again – a speaker should have the right to say ‘god bless you’ if he or she wishes.
    23) Disagree very strongly – ethical relativism is nonsense of the first order. In fact, I wrote a recent blog post on this. I find it ironic that you appeal to a sort of epistemological relativism when you say that “Sufficient evidence is relative from person
    to person”.
    24) Disagree. Guns are one causal factor, but they are probably not the primary cause; Canada is good evidence of that.
    25) Agree. A strong military is important, but last year the Department of Defense accounted for 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures. That’s too much.
    26) Disagree; I wear regular deodorant.
    27) Disagree; this is a ludicrous claim.
    28) Disagree. There are ethically better alternatives, but to say it is the equivalent of murder is much too extreme.
    29) Disagree. I’m no fan of Bush’s Presidency, but to call him a terrorist is extreme rhetoric.
    30) Disagree; again, I support civil liberties.

    There you have it. I am a liberal, and I agree with only about a third of the things that you think the majority of liberals believe. That is, again, only one small piece of anecdotal evidence, but you might want to start reconsidering where you’re getting these generalizations from.

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 1:27 am
    Permalink

    @chaospet@xanga – You’re using the classic liberal move by proclaiming “OMG, LIBERALS DON’T BELIEVE IN THAT STUFF!”.  Everything he listed were things that were either spouted by liberal college students, college professors, groups like PETA, Code Pink and ACORN, MSNBC news anchors, nutjob leftist politicians like Nancy Pelosi, or newspaper or magazine columnists.  

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 12:52 am
    Permalink

    @k_Skrap_moua@xanga – Ah of course, the classic move. When the evidence doesn’t support your claim, just weaken the standards of what counts as evidence. Nicely done.

    As for your list – some of those are standard positions held by the majority of those on the left – for example, opposition to the death penalty. But much of your list is ludicrous, with no basis in reality. The majority of liberals do not make claims like “animal rights are MORE important than human rights” or “Bush is a greater terrorist than Bin Laden”, they don’t believe in censoring news outlets they disagree with, etc.

    The simple fact is you are largely operating in a fiction of your own creation. You obviously aren’t interested in engaging in real principled discussions over complex issues. You are a pyromaniac in a field of strawman opponents, nothing more.

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 12:45 am
    Permalink

    So you’re not very social, and there you have a few quirks. On the other hand you are intelligent and likely able to function “correctly” enough in today’s society to sustain yourself and lead a relatively happy life. Do you really feel the need to limit yourself to a label and then go ahead and label these other people?? Really, there are as many labels as there are people. Thankfully others don’t get to pick out our names for us. 

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 12:34 am
    Permalink

    @chaospet@xanga – Sufficient evidence is relative from person to person which includes sufficient “sources” , testimony alone is all i have.  Perhaps it is only in my secular college classroom setting, but nonetheless, the ones who are vocal are consistent with the three i mentioned above.  But to those that hold your view, NEVER, do they defend the three when they are attacked.  I don’t agree with everything the poster says, but they are at least to the degree practically true. 

    Most liberals agree with the following, some can be considered “generalizations” :

    1.Standards for admissions to universities, fire departments, etc.
    should be lowered for people of color.
    2.Bilingual education for
    children of immigrants, rather than immersion in English, is good for
    them and for America.
    3.Murderers should never be put to death.

    4.During the Cold War, America should have adopted a nuclear arms
    freeze.
    5.Colleges should not allow ROTC programs.
    6.It was
    wrong to wage war against Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War.
    7.Poor
    parents should not be allowed to have vouchers to send their children to
    private schools.
    8.It is good that trial lawyers and teachers
    unions are the two biggest contributors to the Democratic Party.

    9.Marriage should be redefined from male-female to any two people.

    10.A married couple should not have more of a right to adopt a child
    than two men or two women.
    11.The Boy Scouts should not be allowed
    to use parks or any other public places and should be prohibited from
    using churches and synagogues for their meetings.
    12.The present
    high tax rates are good.
    13.Speech codes on college campuses are
    good and American values are bad.
    14.The Israelis and Palestinians
    are morally equivalent.
    15.The United Nations is a moral force for
    good in the world, and therefore America should be subservient to it and
    such international institutions as a world court.
    16.It is good
    that colleges have dropped hundreds of men’s sports teams in order to
    meet gender-based quotas.
    17.No abortions can be labeled immoral.

    18.Restaurants should be prohibited by law from allowing customers to
    choose between a smoking and a non-smoking section.
    19.High schools
    should make condoms available to students and teach them how to use
    them.
    20.Racial profiling for terrorists is wrong — a white
    American grandmother should as likely be searched as a Saudi young male.

    21.Racism and poverty — not a lack of fathers and a crisis of values
    — are the primary causes of violent crime in the inner city.
    22.It
    is wrong and unconstitutional for students to be told, “God bless you”
    at their graduation.
    23.No culture is morally superior to any other.

    24.Guns are the cause of crime and violence in inner cities.
    25.
    We should defund the armed forces as they have done in France
    and Canada.
    26. Patchouli oil is a substitute for
    Right Guard?
    27. Animal rights are more important than
    human rights.
    28. Eating meat is murder.
    29. George W. Bush is a
    greater terrorist than Saddam Hussein or Binladin.
    30. Believes
    in freedom of speech, but believe conservative talk radio and Fox News
    should be censored.

    If you have time you can answer for me which of these you agree on.  Only out of curiosity.  I don’t want to debate anything- just want to know if you agree with these issues as a liberal. It’s a long list, but whatever… just wanted to share…We only have to read a few of the comments on here to affirm # 30. 

    Reply
  • June 13, 2010 at 12:25 am
    Permalink

    @liberalmaverick@xanga – What evidence do you have that trash collection, road building, and armed services are better provided by the government than if they were provided by private companies?  Trash collection is as standard as mail delivery, but to cut down on government spending, you could have several trash companies compete against each other with incentives to benefit their customers instead of coming at a specific time on their schedule once per week, which happens to be inconvenient for a lot of people.  Plus, trash collectors aren’t always able to collect everything you want to throw out and there are a lot of places that garbage trucks won’t even venture to, mainly rural areas, forcing those residents to have to drive 20 or so miles to the local dump.  As for road building, I think that’s another example of private companies doing a better job.  A lot of roads, particularly in defunct towns, look like shit with a bunch of potholes because the city government doesn’t have the resources to upkeep the roads (labor, materials, etc.)  If companies were competing against each other for road construction and maintenance, it would be cheaper and not be so much of a burden on local governments.  There was actually a good example of this in a Hawaiian town.  The local government of this town said it would have taken them over a year to repair this one road.  Since the locals didn’t want to wait, they all pitched in to repair the road and it only took eight days.  As for the military, I’ll agree that the government is good at running it, but the government is also reliant on *surprise surprise* private industry to manufacture weapons and high tech equipment.  In fact, it’s because of our free enterprise capitalist system that we have the best technological weapons and resources that allow our military to be the most efficient in the world.

    No, the reason why our society isn’t “devouring each other like cannibals” is because of our Judeo-Christian roots; not because of big government.  While laws are necessary to protect citizens from harm, there are laws that do more harm than good and are overbearing.

    Insurance companies cannot charge whatever they want.  Go back and study basic economics. Only a monopoly would be able to charge whatever it wants; prices don’t come out of thin air otherwise.  While the health insurance companies are an oligopoly and are forced to charge more, that would be solved if government red tape was cut to allow more entry into the industry.  Right now, a heavy burden on health insurance companies is they’re not allowed to compete across state lines.  Also, I think the idea of health insurance in general is bogus.  One of the main reasons why medical costs are so high is because of health insurance.  To me, health insurance should only cover you if you have a serious illness or get into a serious accident; it should not be used to apply for standard check ups and prescription purchases.  I mean, imagine if you used your car insurance for simple maintenance.  A standard oil change, which costs about $20-$30, would most likely jump to about $70-$80 because the service guys would be reliant on the car insurance companies to pay them.    

    Reply
  • June 12, 2010 at 11:56 pm
    Permalink

    “the handful of sex scandal cases in the Catholic Church”

    Unless you have the hands of a giant, go shove your head back in the sand, you little apologist motherfucker. Your “mental disorder” doesn’t excuse what an unrelenting cunt you clearly are.

    You know what really is a mental disorder? Dismissing people who disagree with you as having mental disorders. I believe it’s called, in part, “narcissism.” So have a great big cup of ‘Fuck the hell off’ and have a nice day. Thanks.

    Reply
  • June 12, 2010 at 11:52 pm
    Permalink

    @chaospet@xanga – That’s true.  But my hasty generalization is to the degree a “more that often true” hasty generalization. But you don’t have to buy it, but i’m sure you have hasty generalizations of your own, if not in these comments, somewhere in your head. 

    Like the lady above me who states, “Why would xanga allow something like this…”, and at the same time pretend to uphold to something called “freedom of speech”.  Seriously? 

    Reply
  • June 12, 2010 at 11:51 pm
    Permalink

    @falconfraudless@xanga – Let me be the first liberal, then, that you’ve heard say that he HATES that “Yes We Can” Obama video.  Hates it hates it hates it.  I don’t know what about it you think is “wrong”; what disgusts me the most is the utter shallowness, stupidity, and hype that the video conveys, and the idea that people actually take it seriously and might even have voted for Obama based off of it.

    Reply
  • June 12, 2010 at 11:51 pm
    Permalink

    @k_Skrap_moua@xanga – I’d love to see your evidence for that one. And don’t resort to anecdotes, please. They aren’t good evidence for statistical claims like the one you’re making, and I could just as easily reply with anecdotes of my own (I, for example, am a liberal who does not hate any of those things).

    Reply
  • June 12, 2010 at 11:49 pm
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – Saying that government “doesn’t work” and that it’s a “an ill-effective means of providing products
    and services to the populous” is just so hard to believe when you look around at all the government services that are working so well.  Pretty much every public service, from your garbage collectors to interstate highways to the armed services, works competently, fairly and at a better value than what the private sector would provide.  Those that don’t are the exception rather than the rule.

    The very fact that our society is still alive and we aren’t devouring each other like cannibals is a testament to the strength of government, which is the institution we pool ourselves into to take care of issues we can’t handle individually.

    As for Obamacare, everyone has to pay money into insurance companies, and insurance companies can charge whatever they want.  That’s the key point.  Yeah they have to pay a little more in taxes but they can easily make that back in premium increases.  There really isn’t that much government regulation over insurance companies, though I only wish there were.  Private companies are still very much in the driver’s seat and now they will basically have control over everyone’s bank accounts.

    Reply
  • June 12, 2010 at 11:23 pm
    Permalink

    Anyone else concerned that Xanga would allow something like this to be at the top of their blog sharing? 

    Reply
  • June 12, 2010 at 8:58 pm
    Permalink

    There are so many holes in the reasoning of this article, it’s hard to know where to begin. Anyway congrats to “Autisible”, this -ish site has lost any shred of credibility that it might have once possessed. Good work.

    Reply
  • June 12, 2010 at 6:28 pm
    Permalink

    @schmidy182@xanga – THere’s the campaign video of kids singing about Obama as if he were a diety.  NO liberal i know thought it was wrong. 

    Chris Matthews and his statement on “forgetting Obama was black”.  As if remembering he was black was really important at all?  Only the general liberal would say such a thing. 

    Liberals love to bash specifically the “christian” religion.  Yet VERY FEW would ever dare to do the same with islam. 

    Lastly, the Arizona immigration law.  Thinking that such a law is “racist” is what I call a HASTY GENERALIZATION.  These are almost true of the general liberal:

    1.)  Hates Bush
    2.)  Hate Christianity
    3.)  Hates Fox News

    Reply
  • June 12, 2010 at 11:45 am
    Permalink

    aha ahahahahhahahaa. wow. its own mental disorder. omg that was so funny. if it is, my cousin has it. she is all about yelling at BP and boycotting their “incompetence” (not that they arent) but will she at all question obama for still insisting on offshore drilling? NOOO.

    Reply
  • June 12, 2010 at 11:25 am
    Permalink

    @liberalmaverick@xanga – The problem with government is it just simply doesn’t work.  It’s an ill-effective means of providing products and services to the populous, and simple economic theory explains just that.  This was evidenced in the former Soviet Union, it’s evidenced in countries like Cuba and North Korea, it’s evidenced in Venezuela, it’s evidenced in countries like Greece and Spain, and it’s evidenced here.  I wouldn’t say I’m anti-government, but I am certainly for limited government.  The private sector runs this country and has allowed this country to grow into the greatest nation in the history of civilization; not the government.  It’s because of government that this country is falling into bankruptcy as it continues to rack up debt and tie private companies (big and small) by the ankles by preventing them from growing.  Some argue that socialism brings equality, when in reality the only form of equality it brings is that everyone is equally miserable.  

    How do you think pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies will make out like bandits if they have to pay a lot more as a result?

    Government health care is socialist in that it puts the authority of the health care industry in the hands of the federal government and they manage the insurance plan and who gets treated and who doesn’t.  Maybe it’s more fascist in that you’re required to have it. 

    Reply
  • June 12, 2010 at 1:52 am
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – I fundamentally disagree with you on the role of government; I am as pro-government as you are anti-government.  I’m just gonna leave it at that.

    As for ObamaCare, you don’t have to tell me how bad it is – I was against it, and I would’ve filibustered it if I had been in the Senate.  My opposition comes from the left rather than the right; I think it’s actually too corporate-friendly and, contra what you said, I think insurance and pharmaceutical companies will actually make out like bandits now that they’ve basically been given the keys to the country with the individual mandate.  I think we agree in our opposition to the individual mandate.  I do think that a lot of people have an incorrect view of what’s actually in it – this is proven by opinion polls quizzing people about what’s in the legislation – and that the over-the-top attacks of it as “socialism” are completely misguided; like I’ve said before this was a very conservative law modeled after what Mitt Romney passed in Massachusetts.  Calling ObamaCare “socialism” is a huge insult to actual socialism!

    I completely agree with you on Obama’s betrayal of his promise to keep negotiations transparent.  In fact, I have counted a total of seven Obama campaign promise betrayals on health care.  It’s totally disgusting, and what’s even worse are the Obamabots who have actually tried to defend him by claiming that campaign promises don’t mean anything.  I find most conservative criticisms of Obama to be frivolous and off-the-mark, e.g. Muslim, foreign-born, socialist, tyrannical, etc., but I’m not gonna bother defending him when it comes to health care; he’s been a disaster in that area.

    (I do think that conservatives’ attacks of him over health care are also misguided though; they call it “socialist” when it’s really nowhere near socialist (I wish it were socialist!); they should focus more on the individual mandate and how government is basically telling people they have to give money to a private for-profit corporation.)

    Reply
  • June 12, 2010 at 12:45 am
    Permalink

    Not worth reading. i would like to say, how dare any one say anything so offensive to those diagnosed with autism. Fuck liberals. I’m a liberal. Bash my political beliefs, but do not bring a medical condition into it! Good thing I never subscribed to Autisable. 

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 8:50 pm
    Permalink

    I found the post REALLY hard to follow, and it didn’t seem logic at all. But to be fair I kind of stopped reading (thoroughly anyway) after “Liberalism is a mental disorder,” implying that autism is a mental disorder. Cause…um…not really.

    Autism is a neurodevelopmental abnormality. Does this make it a disability? Yes. Does this make it a disorder? Not at all.

    Blindness is a disability. Paralysis is a disability. Dyslexia is a disability. None of the above are commonly labeled “disorders” though, ESPECIALLY not “mental disorders,” and I think it is wrong to throw autism in that category as well. Our bodies, our physiological make-up, visibly appears different than neurotypicals. And our differences come from the way our brains process sensory and communicative input.

    Commonly labeled “mental disorders,” such as depression, bipolar, schizophrenia, borderline, etc., often have a co-morbidity with autism. But that doesn’t make them interchangeable.

    Sorry, but I’ve gotta facepalm on that one.

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 6:31 pm
    Permalink

    So, I’m really hoping this wasn’t serious…

    First of all, all of the “crazy” things liberals believe either aren’t actually things most liberals believe or aren’t nearly as crazy as you’re making them sound…there’s a lot of very obvious bias behind what you’re saying.

    There are some pretty extreme liberals out there. But at the same time there are defnitely some extreme conservatives who do stuff just as crazy as what extreme liberals do.

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 5:53 pm
    Permalink

    If extreme liberalism is a form of Autism, would extreme conservatism be a form of schizophrenia? 

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 3:32 pm
    Permalink

    I’m like 97% sure this was an attempt to combine “Argument by Analogy” with “Reductio ab Absurdum” to highlight how ridiculous its parent article “Autism/Atheism” was.

    In other words, it was trying to be sarcastic and ironic, but failed to make that clear.

    It’s more the editors fault for letting something this shoddy get to publication.

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 1:56 pm
    Permalink

    Wowwwww.  You are basically saying that both Liberals and Autistic people are basically idiots.  Which is completely wrong.  Autistic people aren’t stupid, did you know that?  In their own way they are absolutely brilliant.  Do you even know what Autism is?  I have great respect for Autistic people, you can really learn a lot from them and this post is just complete partisan dribble smothered in utter disrespect for people with Autism.  If you want to make a political argument, I’d choose a more tasteful way to do it.  God I can’t even believe how offensive this is to me, not as a Liberal, but just as a person with morals.

    Not to mention the fact that there is extreme conservatism that can be criticized just as equally.  Extremism comes in many shapes and sizes, and varies from Liberals to Conservatives as well….and honestly, you sound kind of like an extremist nut for saying that people who dont agree with what you agree should be deemed mentally retarded (which isn’t exactly the same thing as Autistic).  So that basically makes you a very large hypocrite.  Need I go on or do you get the picture?

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 1:09 pm
    Permalink

    @rafi09@xanga – Oh and please don’t reply to this. Just take what I said and take it in. What I have given you about the health care bill, you’ll either look up for yourself or you’ll see it when it comes to fruition. But I’m not here for a political argument. I just like setting people straight because I hate it when people are misguided by the media. You told someone else to research stuff for themselves and now I’m telling you to do the same. Finding the truth about it isn’t that hard.

    My main goal on here was to show you that what you’re talking about is actually extremism and both sides suffer from it. If you were to ever actually try to see what ALL liberals talk about, you would see how misguided you are. You would see that one term doesn’t cover an entire side of the spectrum. That there are extremists on all sides. That the media loves to exploit said extremists and show them off as why the opossition is terrible. But there are many sides to all stories.

    I’m just letting you know that a response to either of my comments will be in vain ultimately. Don’t waste your time responding because you won’t change my mind unless you suddenly start giving me evidence. I base my beliefs on evidence and what’s actually going on. Most people do. That’s why people are asking for proof. But if you won’t give any (and I mean links to studies, not issues that one thing had that isn’t actually proof that something else will have issues), then there is no point.

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 1:01 pm
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – The actual terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, no one had an issue with. It was how the people who weren’t actually terrorists were being detained there without actual evidence that they were terrorists. That was why people pushed for Guantanamo Bay to be shut down. If these issues weren’t occurring, then it would have never been shut down. It was shut down after evidence was given that many of the captives weren’t terrorists and didn’t have connections to terrorists. What happened that put them in Guantanamo Bay was the equivalent of a witch hunt. And we have serial killers in our jails on land. You know, the ones who kill with little equipment. Since these guys have no access to bombs in homeland jails, I’m fine with them not being on a base in Cuba. And not all liberals even supported that. Yet again, something you’re lumping liberals into. And I’ve never heard anyone, even on the news, call terrorists “freedom fighters”. Last time I checked, liberals were just as against people attacking us as conservatives are.

    Because you’re the one who started this and you’re the one who claims to have evidence. My evidence is from actually speaking to people who call themselves liberals, personal experience. Oh  and even on the news, you’re only going to find the people you’re talking about on the stations that give the worst example and say that all liberals follow that. Oh and that only liberals follow that. I can’t give you evidence that EXTREMISM isn’t autistic symptom, but that doesn’t matter since I’m not trying to prove that. I can say that you’re describing extremists because I’ve encountered liberals. I’ve talked with them. I kind of consider myself one (I’m more in the middle). I don’t simply go by what’s in the media without doing my own research. You’re the one trying to say that liberalism is a symptom of autism but you haven’t shown your proof. You can’t make a claim that would need to be scientifically based (symptoms of disorders are supposed to be scientifically based) and then not give said evidence and expect people to jump on your bandwagon. If a liberal was doing this with conservatism, I would be asking them for evidence.

    Yet, I’ve never had an issue with TriCare paying for something. Neither has my brother, who has cerebral palsy, so he costs our government a lot of money. That was an issue with Oregon’s financial situation. If the government can pay for TriCare, then I still have no inkling as to why they’ll have an issue with this. They’ll probably pay slightly less now since they won’t be covering ER charges for someone with a cold (that person can go to a doctor now since they will have healthcare!). Plus, private companies will still be around and since a lot of people are against this bill, I’m pretty sure most people won’t be switching over. It’s not like the government will be covering every person in this country. They won’t be. You need to give evidence that what the bill states will be bad because otherwise, you’re just being paranoid. And you don’t have evidence because we still have the private option. The other countries don’t.

    1) The system isn’t set up like the UKs. It isn’t nationalized health care because we do still have the private option. 2) We still have the private option. The bill just stops the private companies from doing many of the things that screwed people over (like saying that if you have cerebral palsy or asthma that they won’t cover you). 3) Doctors are still able to set their own wages, like they do now. It has no control over what the doctors charge. 4) Overcrowding occurs in larger hospitals here. There’s a reason why waiting in the ER can take hours at times (they have too many people to treat!!). So that’s not an example because that’s caused by how many people came to the hospital that needed treatment at once and not the health care system, which isn’t our system even with the bill.

    Here, read this. (oo look, I gave proof to support my claims without being asked!) It’s not that hard to find out what the health care bill is about. Fox spewed a lot of rumors that weren’t true and now a good portion of the population has misconceptions. This actually tells you what the bill actually says. And it addresses your issues. Oh and these were things that I knew before anyone even felt the need to write such an article because I payed attention to what was actually going on and not what Fox was saying. If you do a damn google search, you can find this article and even more! You can do your own research on this instead of spewing off what Fox has said over and over again. The media doesn’t give the full picture, which is why the Internet is an amazing thing.

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 12:52 pm
    Permalink

    I couldnt read the whole thing.  Im going to assume this is a joke and not say anything mean to you.

    (Are you assuming no one will be rude to you because you have asperger’s and should be excused due to your mental illness?

    Okay, I guess Ill be a little bitchy….)

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 12:23 pm
    Permalink

    @toosullied@xanga – I would reply to your long-winded drivel, but it would be useless because all you would do, as you have done, is take what I said and distort it.  So I give you the following advice:

    1) Study economics and how it has been applied throughout history.

    2) Study history beyond what they just hashed out at you in public school or what your college professor’s opinion of what history should have been like is.

    3) Study the history of media in America.

    4) Stop getting all your news from Keith Olbermann.  He’s obviously not helping out your disorder.

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 11:53 am
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – The conservatives in Orange County are extreme because they withhold funds from people who need them and demand that everyone cater to their needs, which is not in the best interest of the less fortunate living in that area (and yes, there are many despite common knowledge). The “vast majority” of Americans do not hold values associated with extreme conservatism, but the values they do share are mostly linked by religion, which has NO PLACE in politics. Liberal values are held by college students at top universities, veterans who have served this country and have decided that war is not right, progressive-thinking, open minded Americans who are tired of the same way of government that’s been going on for 300 years. As for the news anchors, i think it’s really funny that you actually listed all of those channels, because for ONLY potheads and amputee war vets, we liberals sure have a lot of source catering to us. It MUST be because nobody agrees.

    I’m sorry, no president would suck up to our enemies? Were you around before the first gulf war? Iraq was our ALLY. We trained terrorists. So when i’m referring to your outdated facts, you can cite me here. That was also during a Republican administration, if you recall.
    Also, it’s ludicrous to think that Obama publicly dissociated himself with that pastor and is secretly lying to everyone and still agrees with all of the things the pastor said and is saying. Are you joking? The only people who would think that are the same ones who think he’s a terrorist.
    The role of Congress is to pass bills and laws that are best for their district/state. A bill being pushed for by Congress, representing the citizens of America, is passed because A) it’s the right thing to do B) The population does in fact want it and C) members of Congress, though not always honest, do this little thing called trying to get the “pork barrel”, and guess what. Healthcare reform is in it.
    I don’t care if you stereotype me, because i could stereotype you as being mentally ill, too. And we could go back and forth and do this for days and days, but the truth of the matter is, being defensive by pushing off your stereotype on me isn’t going to win you any points or make anyone see your side, regardless of the point youre failing to make.
    Outdated fact number 2: atheist communists want to blow up America. There are a LOT of people who want to blow up America. There are plain old Americans that want to blow up America. There are disturbed teenagers (who are in fact often not atheists) who want to blow up America. During WWII, the Japanese wanted to blow up America.
    As for the solution to healthcare, i completely 100% disagree. Capitalism has not been working, if you can’t see that, and there needs to be a change. The theory is fine and dandy until a single-parent minority family with 5 children (which exists in the first place because of the lack of a living wage, poor education, and poverty) needs treatment and can’t get it because they don’t HAVE any money, and can’t get a better job to live that good ol’ “American Dream” because they can’t go to college, because they have to make money. It would be ignorant to say that capitalism fixes everything, because it doesn’t, as can be seen in the current rates of poverty and homelessness, or by checking statistics on minority families. The solution is a public option, giving all children coverage, and giving other, wealthier Americans a choice to pay for a better doctor. The working and lower classes need something too.
    Ah yes, the old arguments about it being in the constitution. We stupid liberals blabbering about where it is blah blah blah. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof…” -First Amendment to the US Constitution.
    You can’t tell me you’re going to be one of those stupid people who tries to interpret this all beautifully like a bible and tell me that this quote means that we can bring religion into politics just because it doesn’t explicitly say NO RELIGION. RELIGION BAD, when clearly this sentence states that Congress will not abide by any religion or make any decisions based on it. If this is JUST a liberal phenomenon, tell me why it has been cited in hundreds of court cases, first in the mid-1800’s.
    And, finally, liberals get angry when they see closed-minded individuals post ridiculous works of fiction on the internet in an attempt to seem intelligent. I don’t have any more time for this. Feel free to use my signing off as a booster for your ego, but please do not tag my name in any more of your comments.

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 11:44 am
    Permalink

    @nidan@xanga – Ironically, I didn’t even know who she was until after I posted this, when someone compared me to her.  I think she’s awesome though.

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 11:41 am
    Permalink

    @the_tao_of_peaches@xanga – You’re right about one thing in that we don’t have any liberal leaders in America.  That’s because liberals aren’t leaders; they’re agitators.  

    By whom do you ask teaches those things?  College professors of course.

    If you do not believe Obama is liberal, then you certainly are on drugs.

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 11:37 am
    Permalink

    @liberalmaverick@xanga – They work now, but just wait 20-40 years.  People who are in their 20s now won’t have Social Security when they become of age.  That’s why private retirement accounts are the way to go.  The simple fact is government programs are inferior.  They’re either a complete disaster and/or they can be better handled in the private sector.  All they do is make people dependent on the government to live, which destroys peoples’ lives because they don’t want to be productive anymore.  Liberals like this because the more people who are dependent on the government, the more government can grow.  America was never meant to be a welfare state, and it never should be.  It’s because of these disasterous government programs that we have national deficits.  

    It’s not just republicans who are against ObamaCare.  Read GALLUP.  You’ll see that 65% of Americans want ObamaCare repealed, and that many and more never wanted it in the first place.  That’s because they are happy with their current providers, and ObamaCare would cost as much as ten Iraq wars.  In fact, they discovered after passing the bill that it would cost an additional $125 billion.  Nobody wants a government-mandated health insurance program that fines people for not having it and forces private health insurance and pharmaceutical companies out of business by making them pay extravagant fees just to pay for this monstrosity.  Did Obama and Democrats care what the majority of Americans thought?  Nope.  In fact, Obama had to hold closed door meetings (after saying many times that his meetings were going to be public, live, and on C-Span), and had his staff make threats and bribes to congressmen to make them vote for the bill.  This is the very reason why Eric Massa (D-NY) resigned.  The passage of ObamaCare just showed the high contempt Obama and his democrat cronies have for the American people. 

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 11:24 am
    Permalink

    @toosullied@xanga – 

    Your facts are outdated.
    Which ones?

    Yes, you are incredibly correct when you say that we liberals have no problem with muslims blowing up buildings (all muslims do it, you know, and all followers of Islam want to kill Americans)
    I never said all followers of Islam want to kill Americans, but I will point out that the vast majority of people who have attacked or threatened to attack Americans in the past 40 years just so happened to be Muslim (the rest were ironically atheist communists).  

    Rich people are greedy, but PEOPLE are not by any means rich, or greedy. In fact, I think they just want their families not to die from an illness that could have been treated if they had had access to health care.
    And creating a government-run system is not the way to go about doing it.  In fact, creating a state-run government system would slow down or even thwart illnesses from being treated, and people die from illnesses for having to wait so long to see a doctor.  The solution to good health care is capitalism.  It’s because of red tape and regulations that health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies have become giant oligopolies, just like the oil and banking industries have.  Cutting away much of the regulation and allowing said companies to become more competitive would allow health care to be cheaper and there will be more of it supplied.

    There is a separation written in the constitution between church and state for a reason – God has no place in the court room or the White House.

    Show me where in the Constitution does it say there’s a separation between church and state, the old rehashed poor argument liberals use against any presence of religion anywhere.  All it says is “Congress shall establish no law establishing a religion”, which means that, for example, we can’t make Christianity a state mandated religion like Iran and Pakistan make Islam a state mandated religion.  If you’re referring to a display of the 10 Commandments in reference to the court room, that’s a symbol of ethical values.  Religion has never played a dominating role in the court room or the White House, despite what liberals believe.  


    The reason people are simply calling you a dumbass and an idiot is because they don’t think you’re worth the time to respond to, or they don’t want to waste precious mental space on YOUR psychobabble.
    Actually, it seems to me that most of the people here feel targeted by the post because I’m describing them.  Liberals don’t get angry when you lie about them; they get angry when you tell the truth about them. 

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 11:11 am
    Permalink

    I can’t believe this is posted on the Autisable site. As for the actual post itself, I’m speechless.

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 11:09 am
    Permalink

    @toosullied@xanga – Okay, the conservatives in Orange County, California are extreme just because they vote for conservative values?  You might as well call the vast majority of people in this country “extreme”, because conservative values are values cherished by the vast majority of Americans.  Typical liberal values are held by disgruntled pothead college kids, ex-vietnam era hippies, communists, academia elitists, and NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN/PBS/MSNBC news anchors, which make up only 20% of the population.

    While I do find it suspicious that Obama doesn’t want to show anyone his birth certificate and he has a brother living in a hut in Kenya, I never go after Obama for possibly not being a natural born citizen.  No president of the US would suck up to our enemies, make bribes to politicians about to be voted out of office for a high-level position they’re not qualified for, or hold the vast majority of Americans in contempt and mock them during speeches around the country that are designed as campaign rallies either.  But that’s what Obama did, so I think it’s reasonable to suspect if Obama has connections with terrorists even while he’s president.  After all, he did send a huge check to Hamas.

    Obama publicly dissociated himself with his pastor after his pastor’s Anti-American and racist comments were made public because he was running for president still.  The truth is he has been going to see the same pastor for the last 20 years, the same pastor married him and his wife and baptized his children, and the same pastor served on his campaign.  O-liar likes to make claims like that all the time.

    The truth is most Americans, even DEMOCRATS, did not want ObamaCare to be passed.  In fact, 65% of Americans want ObamaCare to be repealed.  Obama did not find a middle ground.  In fact, it wasn’t even his bill; it was formulated by members of Congress.  Obama only campaigned for it, and lied about how it was going to reduce the deficit (anyone with a brain could figure that out) and how there won’t be any death panels.   

    While you’re at it, you should go ahead and stereotype the “blacks” and “jews” and “gays” as well.

    How about I just stereotype you instead by pointing out that comments like this only confirm that I have a point that liberals have a mental disorder?  My comments are based on how people not just on Xanga, but elsewhere act.  Here you are trying to play the minority discrimination card, which is typical among liberals who lose arguments.  Anyways, if I am speaking about only a few people in a large population, well…it must be a coincidence that you are included in that “few”.    

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 10:45 am
    Permalink

    I would’ve figured that Lobornthoughtpalace would’ve written this, till I saw who the author was.

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 9:57 am
    Permalink

    “Kids are taught daily that America has been the most vile and corrupt
    country in the history of the world, Christianity should be shunned
    because Christians are fascists” Really? By who?
    Not to mention, we don’t even have any real “liberal” leaders in America. Obama, a liberal? I wish he was. He’s done nothing but compromise for a year and a half with the party of Reagan and Jesus My Lord and Savior. Liberalism = Cowardice, that I could see as a legit post, or liberalism in the US, anyway. Now comparing conservatism with dementia on the other hand seems about right. Let’s see….Worshipping imaginary deities and lowering taxes on the people with the most money… and large businesses who shut down the factories where Americans used to work …. and also launching absurd wars in a part of the world whose problems could only be ended if they were totally wiped out by an H-bomb. HMMMM

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 5:16 am
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – Okay, if that’s how you want to see Medicare and Social Security.  I always figured that seniors liked them because, you know, they work.  They certainly command high approval ratings (I think Medicare’s approval ratings are somewhere in the mid- to high-90s).  They’re not perfect, and as a liberal I’m totally committed to making them and other government programs work better.  But I know they work well enough that they should be extended to cover all Americans.

    I was actually against ObamaCare, which is really just RomneyCare at the national level.  I never understood why Republicans got so worked up over it considering it had everything the Republicans wanted in it.

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 4:04 am
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – And a few more things while I’m on my elitist, latte-sipping hippie liberal rant:

    Your facts are outdated.
    Yes, you are incredibly correct when you say that we liberals have no problem with muslims blowing up buildings (all muslims do it, you know, and all followers of Islam want to kill Americans)
    Rich people are greedy, but PEOPLE are not by any means rich, or greedy. In fact, I think they just want their families not to die from an illness that could have been treated if they had had access to health care.
    There is a separation written in the constitution between church and state for a reason – God has no place in the court room or the White House.

    The reason people are simply calling you a dumbass and an idiot is because they don’t think you’re worth the time to respond to, or they don’t want to waste precious mental space on YOUR psychobabble.
     As for myself, you’ve already pissed me off, and your childish, immature attempts to seem cool and factual are repetitions of the same misinformed statements that originally brought us all here. They aren’t helping your argument and they aren’t correct.

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 3:32 am
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – you know, i find that extremely hard to believe considering you and i have probably met many, many people throughout the course of our lifetimes. I’ve met as many hardcore conservatives in Orange County, California as i have in Florida. The conservative pull is definitely existent, as can be seen recently during the California primary election. Look up Carly Fiorina and tell me she has no influence in government after being voted the Republican candidate for senate.

    The same people that are saying President Obama associates with terrorists are the same people that insist he is not an American. While I don’t deny that he did in the past know the man you’re referring to, no President of the US would associate with terrorists. That’s a ridiculous claim. Secondly, Obama publicly dissociated himself with that pastor after the man made the comment. Third, he is SO far from an extreme liberal. He has done nothing but try to compromise throughout his “failed” 1.5 years in office. He had the power to pass whatever kind of bill he wanted and instead tried to find a middle ground so that many whiny, self-concerned conservatives would stop pitching a hissy fit about having to pay for healthcare for those in need, regardless of cause, and that’s just one example.
    “Reckless, irrational, and over-insulting”. While you’re at it, you should go ahead and stereotype the “blacks” and “jews” and “gays” as well. You are speaking about a few people and placing a very, very large population into those small, narrow-minded three words. I could say the exact same thing about Evangelical Christians, Mormons, and rednecks, but they sure wouldn’t be all true.

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 2:54 am
    Permalink

    @liberalmaverick@xanga – Single-payer means the government and the government only provides the health insurance.  I’ve talked and heard from quite a few seniors who were scammed by the Medicare system, but that doesn’t matter anymore because ObamaCare is absorbing the funding for Medicare.  The late Ronald Reagan’s response to not being able to get rid of Medicare would have been along the lines of:

    No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size.  In fact, once a new government program is initiated, it is the closest thing to eternal life on Earth.

    The reason why Medicare, and Social Security for that matter, haven’t been dissolved even though they were initiated only as quick fixes is because liberals use them to buy votes from people who they hoped have become so dependent on the programs that they can sway voters into voting for them if they tell them that republicans just want to take away their Social Security and Medicare.

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 2:46 am
    Permalink

    And just when I thought I had already met the world’s most ignorant person…
    Congrats.  You’ve topped my dumbass list.

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 2:38 am
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – Oregon doesn’t have single-payer.  Single-payer is like Medicare or the non-hospital portions of the NHS, both of which are immensely popular and provide quality health care at low cost to consumers.  Just ask any senior how they like Medicare, or any British citizen how they like NHS.  Or ask Ronald Reagan why he couldn’t get rid of Medicare and Margaret Thatcher why she couldn’t get rid of the NHS.

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 2:20 am
    Permalink

    Why is this a featured Xanga entry?  Anyone can write garbage and it’ll be featured now?

    Btw, I’m a diehard liberal and I think President Obama is too conservative, actually.  Every time he proposes legislation it’s pre-watered down, so that conservatives in Congress can water it down even further.  And he passed Mitt Romney’s health care plan that literally had everything Republicans wanted in it.

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 1:53 am
    Permalink

    @toosullied@xanga – Extreme conservatives are far and few, and are typically isolated in tiny little farm towns out in the middle of nowhere.  They’ve had no influence on any social institutions or governmental policies or mainstream avenues of media.  The vast majority of conservatives are rational and calm people who are grounded in the reality of what is happening around them.

    Extreme liberals, on the other hand, plague major cities, the media, colleges, public schools, the courts, and even bodies of government in this country.  Our president is an extreme liberal who associates himself with a guy who tried blowing up the Pentagon in the 70’s, a racist Anti-American pastor, and a guy who wrote a book titled “Rules for Radicals” just to name a few.  Most of their responses and arguments seem like hallucinations, as LoBornlytes would put it.  If they are not the result of hallucinating, then it’s reasonable to believe they are the result of a mental disorder judging by how wreckless, irrational, and even overly insulting they are.

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 1:45 am
    Permalink

    @rafi09@xanga – But liberals do sympathize with terrorists.  Otherwise, they wouldn’t have pushed and protested to get Guantanamo Bay shut down, give captured terrorists Miranda and Constitutional rights as if they were just criminals and not enemy combatants, push for nuclear disarm when international threats are high, and go out of their way to undermine the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and prevent funding for our military to do their job.  Plus, a lot of liberals refer to terrorists as simply “freedom fighters”.  

    I don’t see why I have the absolute burden of proof for speaking from a conservative point of view, but when someone speaks from a liberal point of view, liberals treat it as gospel.

    A good example of government-run health care is in the state of Oregon, where the state could not afford to provide treatment for a woman’s illness, but they were willing to pay for her euthanasia.  Government officials don’t know jack about how to run a hospital, let alone how to treat patients.  If doctors are forced to work for little or no pay, after spending years in school and accumulating some of the highest student loan debts out of any degree profession, do you think many people will want to become doctors anymore?  Why should we wait to see how it’s going to be when there’s a good indication that it will be a disaster?  Just take a look at what goes on in UK hospitals: Deliveries are performed in hospital elevators because they ran out of beds for the overwhelming number of patients.  And yes, you are required to purchase the health care that the government has established.  That’s what a single-payer system is.  Plus, the government’s intention is to force health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies out of business by making them pay a $2.4 billion annual fee that increases every year starting in 2014.  

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 12:45 am
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – Uh and you aren’t forced to have the government health care. Just some form of health care. And government health care isn’t necessarily crappy. I’m on TriCare right now (run by the government for military members and their dependents) and it’s about the same as the other insurance providers that my parents could’ve chosen from. Even the version for retirees that costs more was still preferable to more expensive private plans. There is no evidence that this plan will be crappy, so how about we wait to see how it is. I’m pretty sure it’s still better than not having insurance for the people who would get it. Just wanted to clear that up.

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 12:40 am
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – You are describing extremists. You conservatives have them too. You’ve picked extreme beliefs held by extreme liberals and mashed them all up and saying that all liberals agree with all of these things. In reality, only the extremists agree with the majority of what you’ve posted (you did post some non-extreme things like believing that we should take care of the planet we live on, but not many) and they generally only hold a few of the beliefs and not all. God, you said that liberals sympathize with terrorists!!! You did not describe liberalism, so of course the actual liberals are mad at you. How would you like it if someone took all the extreme things that any extreme conservative did and then say that conservatism is a mental disorder? I doubt you’d like it.

    Extremism, sure I’d take that as possibly being related to autism (someone did comment on their autistic relatives being extremists), but that happens with conservatives too. You still haven’t given any evidence that this is a case though. You mention books about it, but no titles. No links to anything. If you don’t want people jumping down your throat, you should probably give actual reason for why you made your claim. You not understanding a viewpoint because you have the exact opposite belief won’t cut it with most people on both ends of the spectrum who think critically. If you have evidence (that is sound evidence and not just some guy saying that he thinks that liberalism=disorder because, well, he doesn’t understand why people don’t agree with him), then show us. We’d love to see it.

    Reply
  • June 11, 2010 at 12:30 am
    Permalink

    this is ridiculous.

    write the same thing about conservatism, or say that ANY extreme political belief is, in your opinion, a possible form of autism, and then maybe i’ll give this type of post a chance.
    until then, stop posting.

    Reply
  • June 10, 2010 at 11:31 pm
    Permalink

    Wtf.

    This doesn’t even belong in Polit-ish. It belongs in Bullshi-sh.

    Oh my god, who allows this kind of crap to get posted and recc’d?

    Reply
  • June 10, 2010 at 12:33 pm
    Permalink

    @niceguyeddie – I’m sorry, but you haven’t debunked anything.  Your whole post was just full of diatribes shouting “OMG UR JUST BUYING INTO LIES!” and did really nothing to disprove anything I said.  The economy is getting better?  Are you high?  Or do you just have a mental disorder?  Since you’re a self-proclaimed liberal, I’m sure the latter is the case, but I would not deny the former either.  Have you looked at the unemployment rate, or the national deficit for that matter?  When the DOW was crashing last year, Obama wrote it off as nothing more than a “tracking poll”.  Now all of the sudden, it’s an indication that the economy is getting better?  More people will have health care?  Yeah, crappy ass government-run health care that everyone is forced to jump onto or else pay a $750 fine (that increases per year).  

    I would spend time refuting your post bit by bit, but it’s obvious that would be a waste of time because you would just say that everything I posted is “OMG TEH KUNSERVATIVE BIAZ!” seeing that you’re in bed with far-left fringe groups like Media Matters and the Huffington Post, so you can go dance in your underwear over winning the debate and making a fool out of me, or so you think… 

    Reply
  • June 9, 2010 at 7:26 pm
    Permalink

    I’ve posted a point-by-point take-down of this garbage over on my blog.  It’s long but I barely broke a sweat doing it.  This kind of trash is weak-tea and easily debunked becuase contrary to [the brainless azzhat who wrote it]’s opinion, logic and reason is very much on the side of the liberal, particularly when the conservative arguing is as much a meathead as this clown is.

    So come on by, I take [on] ALL TYPES: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com

    Reply
  • June 8, 2010 at 11:02 pm
    Permalink

    @Scott – Bush’s “assault on the Middle East” was in response to some people from the middle east flying planes into the twin towers and the pentagon as well as other attacks by the same group of people.  While I don’t hold Bush blameless for the problems with the two middle east wars, a lot of the problems can be blamed on liberals and their politically correct policies, which turned Vietnam into a drawn out disaster and is making these wars the same, when America could have been in and out of there within a year.  However, even the debt created from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars doesn’t nearly compare to the debt that Obama has tromped up and plans to tromp up in the future.  No other president has created such massive debt in the history of America, and I’m convinced he’s doing it on purpose because he hates this country and wants to ruin it.

    Obama supports policing the borders?  Ha!  So how come Obama went as far as apologizing to China for the Arizona immigration law on humanitarian grounds, especially since all Arizona did was enforce existing law that Obama should have been enforcing in the first place but wasn’t?  He joined the bandwagon in labeling people that supported the Arizona law as a bunch of racists.  So much for wanting to secure the border.  As for the oil issue, are you referring to cleaning up the spill?  If that’s the case, why is it taking him 50+ days to do anything about it?  People may argue that he’s not responsible for the clean up, but he is in fact responsible for cutting the red tape and allowing engineers and whatnot to perform the cleanup.  Louisiana governor Bobby Jindel had immediate plans for cleaning up the spill, but the red tape of the federal government got in the way.

    As for sex ed, you’re rehashing the old liberal argument that “Well kids are going to have sex anyways, so we might as well teach them about it.”  What statistics show that kids get pregnant before they receive sex education?  I would blame that on a lack of proper parenting and poor child rearing (common among single mother families) than a lack of sex education in school.  If they are promoting abstinence and condemning birth control methods, why are they passing out condoms and teaching kids how to put them on cucumbers?     

    Reply
  • June 8, 2010 at 6:01 pm
    Permalink

    Most of the same points could be made about the conservatives that blindly supported Bush’s assault on the middle east. That too drove up our deficit, it also caused major damage to our economy. This biggest problem I see with your argument is that you don’t have your facts straight. You can’t expect to be heard if you behave ignorantly.
    There are a lot of liberals that support policing the borders, including Obama. There are a lot of liberals that are concerned about the oil issues and the food issues, including Obama. The reality is that there aren’t many other options and most of them would cost even more money.
    Considering the trends, as far as sexual education goes, it makes sense to educate children about safe practices. There are children that are getting pregnant before they even get a chance to receive sexual education. If you’ve ever taken one of these classes or seminars, then you would know that they plainly explain that abstinence is the best policy. They teach that birth control methods do not protect against STDs. Saying that type of education is wrong or promotes sexual activity is like saying that work safety education and safety guards on equipment promote limb loss. Maybe we should abolish all traffic laws so that people won’t be unsafe when they drive?

    Reply
  • June 7, 2010 at 7:59 am
    Permalink

    I am appalled! As a (very) slightly left of center, generally non-political person I will say only this. Extreme conservativeism such as that experessed in this artical is just as bad as extreme liberalism.Hence, if being a Liberal is a mental disorder then so is being Conservative, which means most of us are crazy in one way or another. Nuff said.

    Reply
  • June 7, 2010 at 1:57 am
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – I look forward to your response, though I take issue with the idea that liberals like electing Byrd. Just like not all conservatives like some Republicans, I can almost 100% assure you that genuine liberals don’t elect Byrd – yellow dog democrats do. The big problem I have with liberalism in this country is it’s yellow-dog madness more than anything else (as well as its seeming love affair with the benefits of technology without actually trying to impliment further advancement of said technology).

    Reply
  • June 7, 2010 at 1:52 am
    Permalink

    @FireMapleSong@xanga – I’ll get to your post tomorrow night.  It’s going to take too long for me to respond and I’ve run out of time this evening.  I’m going to reply to bekkabrutality’s post though because that won’t take as long to respond to.

    @bekkabrutality@xanga – I actually wrote a whole blog entry on the many double standards of liberals a while back and tried to explain the rationality behind them, as if there was some sort of alternative motive in the works.  Anyways, for example just look at how liberals treat Barack Obama as opposed to George W Bush.  Take this BP oil spill for example.  If this happened while Bush was in office, liberals, particularly in the media, would have been trashing Bush for not solving the problem a week after the oil spill happened.  Since its Obama’s problem, most of the same crowd isn’t holding Obama responsible even after 45+ days (although I’m surprised Chris Matthews has given in).  Hurricane Katrina is proof of this.  Another double standard is the general liberal view towards Christianity and how it should be limited (if not banned) and how they go out of their way to trash it because of how “oppressive” and “discriminatory” and “backwards” it is, especially over gay marriage and abortion.  However, liberals don’t have nearly the same contempt for muslims, who are taught by their religion to brutally beat their wives and children, or brand and decapitate people who don’t believe in Allah.  In fact, ‘some’ liberals consider terrorists to be nothing more than “freedom fighters” while George Bush and CEOs of major American corporations are the greatest evil in the world.  Then, one of my favorite double standards just based on how appalling it is, is the race/minority double standard.  The whole speal liberals made to prop up Barack Obama during his campaign is that he is a “man of color” and it would be ‘historic’ to elect him into office to finally show how ‘post-racial’ America is.  At the same time, did liberals feel the same way towards Clarence Thomas, a conservative, becoming the first black Supreme Court justice?  Hell no.  In fact, because he’s black, liberals have treated him worse than they would have treated a white conservative because the liberal belief is that minorities are victims of society and people of color are stupid to support the “evil racist republicans”.  Not to mention that liberals keep electing Robert Byrd, a former Grand Kleagle (sp) of the KKK, to the US Senate. 

    There are a lot more double standards I can point out, but I think that’s enough for tonight and I hope that answers your question.  As for extremists on the right, yes they are out there.  However, there’s not nearly as many of them, none of them are taken seriously even by conservatives, and they’re not nearly as organized as extreme leftists.  Extreme leftists, on the other hand, plague the media, hollywood, colleges, public schools, and even major cities like San Francisco.  That’s why the extreme left is more of a problem in this country (and in Europe).    

    Reply
  • June 7, 2010 at 1:18 am
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – im curious about the double standards “liberals come up with on every issue.”  its not a challenge, and don’t tell me i feel victimized; its just a question.

    and you might want to look at it this way:  sure there are extreme leftists, but doesn’t the right side of the spectrum have its fair share of extremists too?  i’m not here to debate the ideology, or which side is right or wrong, but maybe we should be fair first.

    Reply
  • June 7, 2010 at 1:13 am
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – But I could make the same argument about the right wing – it’s no more a “way of life” than is liberalism! For example, they have double standards – “the government bungles everything while the free market can do no wrong!”, yet when the lack of regulation leads to total banking collapse, or when BP finds its less cost-effective to actually post engineers on watch to ensure proper maintenance of the pipeline, it’s never the fault of shortsighted, irrational, semi-self-interest that drives the market, while meanwhile the government is always a failure in their eyes, even when our road systems (though currently crumbling due to pork barrel replacing actual maintenance) are completely functional, and our education system (until becoming drastically underfunded) lead the way in the early 20th century for standardized quality in academic advancement.

    Furthermore, dissenters to the right wing worldview are labeled radicals and marxists (you do not know how often I’ve been labeled a marxist despite having read marx and determining that his philosophy has no relevance to the modern post-industrial age). Apparently, we’re even now “autistic”, despite any lack of evidence besides sucking, on average, at holding intelligent debate. I don’t mean to construct strawmen (you could be, for example, a Libertarian, a moderate, or just a person who hates the left-wing without any ties to American Conservatism), but have you seen the irrational religious nature of the American Conservative movement? In the same way that Michael Savage has labeled liberalism a mental disorder, some authors are now looking at the religious conservatism in the Republican party and seeing signs of troubled self-esteem, overcompensation, etc. – essentially conservative mental illness. Honestly, I think lumping either group into an “armchair” psychological assessment is pointless and fails to address the arguments that both parties are putting up, but I digress.

    The point is, if that’s the criteria you use to label Liberals “autistic”, you’re opening a huge can of worms with plenty of shit to go around for every camp. And that camp may just include your own.

    On a side note, I’ve always heard that autistic people, like people with aspergers, generally have a difficult time understanding human social conventions and the concept of emotion. Considering the raw emotionalism that the irrational liberals you speak of have been accused of, wouldn’t you think that would kind of disqualify them from that diagnosis?

    Reply
  • June 7, 2010 at 12:52 am
    Permalink

    @FireMapleSong@xanga – I consider autism to be a broad spectrum of mental disorders.  Maybe I’m wrong in that regard and need to separate the mental disorder of liberalism from the spectrum.  There are no clinical studies, but then again I honestly don’t think any have been tried.  The only real proof is just the total irrationality by such people.  

    Liberalism is more than just political; it’s a way of living everyday life.  It’s one thing to have certain political beliefs, but it’s another thing to insist on something incredibly crazy that only someone with a sense of insanity would think up.  I base this partially on the number of double standards liberals come up with on every issue, such as race, religion, the environment, science, etc. and how hostile they are to voices of dissent, such as trying to classify dissenters as racists and bigots when its blatantly false.  It happens in the media, it happens on college campuses, and it happens on grand Internet blog sites like Xanga.  

    Reply
  • June 7, 2010 at 12:30 am
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – While the government does NOT build bridges and fix our terrible energy problem (which our government itself propagated by encouraging suburbanization rather than walkable sustainable urban design with efficient public transportation), I personally have no problem with the government co-ordinating efforts that the market will not take over for the simple fact that the average consumer is more-or-less a short-sighted emotional version of Homer Simpson than he/she is an intelligent consumer who is aware of every aspect of production that the particular item that they are purchasing goes through (or, for that matter, whether the item itself should even be purchased at all). Nonetheless, I’m sure we may disagree on this subject, but I’m glad you recognize that this is all just opinion, and has nothing to do with intelligence level. Though I agree most American Liberals (particularly those who think this President is actually doing a decent job handeling this nation) are not the brightest crayons in the box, I don’t think I’m any smarter than them just because I have different ideas about how this nation works.

    So what makes them autistic aside from the fact that you disagree with their ideas and they suck at debating? Have we any clinical studies to back this up? If it’s autism, that means there’s a genetic component to their ailment. Have we any data to back this up?

    It’s easy to make fun of idiots, but truth be told, the average person is quite an idiot. It seems a bit rash to catagorize an entire political group into the field of a genetic condition just because they’re not all Gabors and Einsteins. 

    Reply
  • June 7, 2010 at 12:18 am
    Permalink

    @FireMapleSong@xanga – Unless you’re referring to the government, you raise a good point about the real smart people being the ones who build stronger roads and bridges, clean oil spills, and come up with new forms of energy (particularly ones that can adequately replace fossil fuels by a cost and execution-means, which sadly there really isn’t any that can yet).  However, I have not and do not claim to have a “self-perceived intellectual superiority”. 

    Reply
  • June 7, 2010 at 12:01 am
    Permalink

    @schmidy182@xanga – When I said I would classify liberalism as its own separate mental disorder, what I was implying was I don’t believe being a liberal ties in with having aspergers, contrasting from the suggestion that people who have aspergers tend to be atheist.  The nature of most of the responses, which have been something along the likes of “OMG THS IZ TEH STUPID AND BIAZED POST LOLOLOLOLOLOL” made it reasonable for me to assume that these people felt like they were targeted by the post.  If people were truly apathetic and just thought this was some sort of spam post, they wouldn’t have bothered to reply (unless they were hoping to get a reaction from me).  

    And like I mentioned earlier, I’m not the first person to classify liberalism as a mental disorder; do a Google search and you’ll find plenty on the subject. 

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 11:47 pm
    Permalink

    @edlives@xanga – “We don’t negate one persons opinion just
    because we may disagree.”

    Except that insinuating that a political stance can be connected to a form of mental disability or disorder is not an opinion. It is a serious medical and neurological proposition that should be supported with research and evidence, not baseless claims and assertions.

    It deserves absolute criticism, just like every other scientific proposition and as such, is negated by its own lacking of evidential support.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 11:45 pm
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – You claim to state that liberalism is a mental disorder–Rather, I would classify liberalism as its own unique mental disorder.”  And when people commented on it with their opinions, you argued that their responses are based on the fact they feel victimized because they relate to those you described.
    Just because you haven’t encountered a liberal that can give you good answers to your problems does not mean they aren’t out there.  Also, just because liberals have different opinions doesn’t mean that they have mental disorders. 

    Rather, I would classify liberalism as its own unique mental disorder.”
    If you aren’t “a scientist or psychologist” or claim to be an expert in the field, what right do you have to classify liberalism as “its own unique mental disorder”?

    That “big question mark by the title” is part of the main rhetorical question you answered in this post.  So yes, I did see it.  Thank you for questioning my vision and attentiveness.  You supported the claim that liberalism is a form of autism–not very well, however.

    Your fallacy is that you cannot argue logically.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 11:27 pm
    Permalink

    @schmidy182@xanga – Once again, you undermine your argument with logical fallacies–inductive generalizations, in this case. Just because you observed people with specific traits, it does not equate to all people of similar beliefs to exhibit those specific traits also.
    What I listed were nothing more than examples that only come from the liberal mindset, and they are arguments against the liberal mindset that are typically addressed in forms of media.  I was simply going by that.

    You implied that he was “bitching” about being victimized because he was a liberal.
    And you implied that it was the “only” reason why I said he felt like a victim.

    You wrote about how an ideology is stemmed from a mental disorder yet you failed to back up your claim with no scientific proof or statistics. Arguments are bolstered by the statistics, testimonies, and examples based on unbiased, scientific studies. Without logos, your argument for a scientific “fact” is shot.
    It’s obvious that you missed the nature of the post.  Did you not see the big question mark by the title?  The post was merely my observation, and I wrote it to see what others would think.  I am not a scientist or psychologist, so I am not claiming I’m an expert in the field.  I merely wrote the post in response to someone posting an article suggesting that there’s a link between aspergers and atheism, which also is merely the author’s speculation and doesn’t have any hard data to back it up.  However, I have yet to meet a liberal who has been able to come up with good reasons (regardless of whether I disagree with them or not) why Obama is a good president, or why, for example, illegal aliens deserve preferential treatment in this country, or why socialism is superior to capitalism.

    Your fallacy is your inability to comprehend the post. 


    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 11:26 pm
    Permalink

    I don’t consider myself a liberal (more or less a traditional technocrat before “technocracy” and “bureaucracy” somehow became pseudonymous), but you seriously need to learn the difference between political opinions and empirical facts. While I agree that American liberalism has its irrationalities, this sounds just like pure left-hating disguised as rebellious pseudo-intellectualism. Also, I really resent people who seem to believe that their political opinions result from some self-percieved intellectual superiority, because usually the people who are REALLY smart are building stronger roads and bridges, fixing oil spills, and designing new ways of producing energy rather than bitching about all of the “marxists” who are “punishing businesses for being successful” while “weakening national security”.

    But I’m sure it’s really easy to have an opinion, and especially easy to knock other people down when they feel that things are going good for them.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 11:14 pm
    Permalink

    This is nothing but right-wing garbage.

    Youv’e got to love it when someone starts out saying, “I can’t believe these liberals believe this stuff!” And then proceeds to list a hundered or so points that liberals DON’T, in fact, believe.

    This is trash, and it’s beneeth this board to even post it.  (Beyond the fact that it’s 100% off-topic.)

    The only people with “outlandish, extreme, radical views that they are unable to defend by reasoning and logic when challenged” are peopl ewho wrte trash like this, and the people who believe it.

    Hey guess what: I could misrepresent your position and make you sound pretty stupid too!  OTOH, I could do the same in an actual objective debate, with that “logic” and “reason” stuff you were spouting off about.

    I don’t really care WHAT you think about various issues.  You’re entitled to your opinions.  But if this is indicative of HOW you think, then you’ve got problems.

    IMHO

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 10:58 pm
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – My claim that people that are liberal are
    irrational and unstable has been proven by the responses to this very
    post…
    I have yet, for example, heard any reasons
    from a liberal why Obama is good for America.  When I try to ask that
    question, I get berated by garbage (i.e. everything is Bush’s fault!).”

    Once again, you undermine your argument with logical fallacies–inductive generalizations, in this case.  Just because you observed people with specific traits, it does not equate to all people of similar beliefs to exhibit those specific traits also.

    You implied that he was “bitching” about being victimized because he was a liberal.

    On a side note, when a lot of liberals
    debate, they never admit they’re liberals.”

    I am a liberal.  I have debated you with logic and not my political ideals.

    I personally didn’t feel it [statistics] was necessary for
    this situation…”

    You wrote about how an ideology is stemmed from a mental disorder yet you failed to back up your claim with no scientific proof or statistics.  Arguments are bolstered by the statistics, testimonies, and examples based on unbiased, scientific studies.  Without logos, your argument for a scientific “fact” is shot.

    If I said “far-left” instead of “liberal”,
    would that have made you happy?”
    Diction, or word choice, is crucial when
    addressing your audience.  With your initial logical fallacy of an
    inductive generalization, you worsen your argument.  There is a great
    difference between liberals and far-left liberals (or
    extremist-liberals).

    If you are going to make a claim, support it with all means.  Instead, your post is riddled with logical fallacies and ineffective rhetorical appeals.  Even as a liberal, I could care less if you think I have a mental disorder.  However, as an educated English student, I do care about how you address your audience without insulting a great number of people in your logically unsound argument.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 10:40 pm
    Permalink

    This was the wrong place entirely to express your political opinion
    Yes, you definitely showed you have Asperger’s. 

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 10:33 pm
    Permalink

    @schmidy182@xanga – My claim that people that are liberal are irrational and unstable has been proven by the responses to this very post.  If you take a closer look at the actual post, you will see why it suggests that liberalism is a mental disorder not just by the common beliefs of liberals, but by how they go about defending those beliefs.  I have yet, for example, heard any reasons from a liberal why Obama is good for America.  When I try to ask that question, I get berated by garbage (i.e. everything is Bush’s fault!).  

    If you write off a mere observation as “hate speech”, then I question your rationality.

    I didn’t tell RazieIV he feel victimized “only because he’s a liberal”; I told him he feels victimized because he was bitching about how unjust it was and that it should be removed and even put a guilt trip on the editors for posting it.  Then he went to his own blog to talk about how much of a victim he is in direct relation to the post.  Any rational person who disagrees with what has been said would either ignore the post completely or debate the presented facts.  It’s funny because in her latest book Guilty, Ann Coulter talks about how liberals are notorious for making victims out of themselves.  

    On a side note, when a lot of liberals debate, they never admit they’re liberals; they claim to be above the fringe and post-partisan to make themselves seem like they’re one step above the people they debate with.  It’s a way to make it seem like they have no blood on their hands, and some go out of their way to denounce the label as politically incorrect.  I, however, see right through that.

    While “liberal” is a political ideology, it describes a uniform mindset, and that’s why I label liberals in the same group.  

    What statistics would you like me to post?  I personally didn’t feel it was necessary for this situation, seeing that I was describing typical traits of liberals as opposed to, say, how many liberals believe global warming is real.  If I wrote a research paper for you and asked you to grade it, would that make you happy?  

    If I said “far-left” instead of “liberal”, would that have made you happy?

    Anyways, judging by the majority of replies on here, it’s a lot like how the Pope will denounce Islam as being a religion of violence and evil, and to protest and retaliate against that comment, groups of muslims go and murder nuns.  This actually happened back in 2006  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214167,00.html

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 10:29 pm
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – You may not have directly attacked people with autism or
    Asperger’s, but you used the condition to further your own political ideology.  Your logic is that if someone is liberal they must be “irrational” and “unstable.”  I find your logic to be irrational and unsound.  You are attacking people based on their political ideologies instead of the issue at hand–whether or not liberalism is a form of autism–which is a clear case of Ad Hominem. (Person A makes a claim; Person B attacks Person A and therefore Person A’s claim is
    false.)

    Person A (i.e., RazielV):  He feels misrepresented by your post.  (“In fact, it misuses Aspergers and Autism to create a frail and utterly transparent hate speech against “the left”.”)
    Person B (i.e. you):  You tell him he only feels victimized because he is liberal.
    (“How can I prove that you’re a liberal?  Well judging by your lack of rationality and stability, those are good signs.”) 
    Therefore, Person A’s claim (feeling misrepresented) must be false because he is
    “liberal.”

    Also, you make an inductive generalizationX% of all OBSERVED A’s are B’s.  Therefore, X% of ALL A’s are B’s.—in that you claim all liberals must be irrational or have a “lack of rationality and stability.”  An example of your inductive generalization is exemplifed from lines 9 to 18 that begins with “Then there are the ones who claim…” and ends with the conclusion of your first paragraph.  Just because you have encountered extremist liberals, it does not mean that all liberals are extreme.

    Additionally, your argument is not held up by statistics or any referenced sources that agree or support your claim.  You inadequately appeal to logos, which is the rhetorical appeal most important when arguing about mental disorders or conditions such as autism and Asperger’s Syndrome. Furthermore, your harsh tone established by the series of rhetorical questions discredits your ethos since your audience are those with autism and similar conditions and their families, not those who agree with your political stance.  Your only rhetorical virtue is your pathos, in which you refer to with your rhetorical questions.

    Therefore, based on your fallacious logic, your argument is unsound.  Additionally, your poor attempt to appeal to the three rhetorical appeals (ethos, logos, and pathos) equates to an ineffective argument.

    There is your logical refutation and the rhetorical analysis of your argument to determine if your argument was effective.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 9:10 pm
    Permalink

    @RazielV@xanga – You’re right, science has nothing to do with politics.  That is unless it’s evolution, global warming, and environmental studies.  As I pointed out in the original post, there hasn’t been many studies on liberalism being a mental disorder, especially when most of our educational institutions promote that way of thinking.  

    How can I prove that you’re a liberal?  Well judging by your lack of rationality and stability, those are good signs.  Plus you’re overwhelming desire to get this post shut down because you somehow feel victimized by it.  No where in the post did it attack anyone with autism or aspergers; you just want to assume that because it’s obvious that you believe you’re the victim of everyone’s actions and get everything you don’t like to see censored.  Take some responsibility for yourself for once and avoid posts like this if they offend you.  Everyone is entitled to First Amendment rights; not just liberals.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 9:06 pm
    Permalink

    This is insulting and ridiculous. Maybe my saying this will be in poor taste, given the fact that you’re disabled, but… well, get over yourself.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 9:05 pm
    Permalink

    @edlives@xanga – This entry has nothing to do with Autism. At all. It’s blatantly trying to exploit the concept to further a political agenda. It’s akin to saying: “My baby is cross-eyed. By the way, the Iraq war is wrong”. There’s no correlation between the two thoughts. If this had cohesively and intelligently produced a political dissertation that brought the psychology and physiology of Liberals and Autistics, I would argue otherwise. But this entire entry only once mentions a previous entry, doesn’t expound on it, then mentions the author has Asperger’s. This is never used to analyze a position, but rather as a frail and almost non-existent link to the entire entry.

    I don’t support propaganda, and I don’t support exploiting Autistics (or anyone for that matter) for personal gain. Ever. Consider my support withdrawn. You disappoint me.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 9:00 pm
    Permalink

    @RazielV@xanga – May I submit that there is a political side to Autism.  Lobbyists and so forth.  To deny the politics surrounding Autism – or political views is negating the work that many are doing.

    Again, I encourage you to submit a post in response to this post, and the previous post that this one originally a response to.  I’d be happy to put it up on the site.

    We want to promote discussion – and look forward to your input.

    Thanks.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 8:56 pm
    Permalink

    @edlives@xanga – Ed this does NOT discuss Autism and Asperger’s in any actual way. The only connection they may have is that the author claims to have Asperger’s. This is not an educational, informative, or even coherent piece. It is blatant propaganda, and is insulting to people with Autism/Asperger’s. If you choose to support this, I remove all support of you and this site. I know others will follow too.

    If this were a political site, I’d stand by your decision. But this does not do anything other than insult and misrepresent Autistics. Why would you promote that?

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 8:53 pm
    Permalink

    @RazielV@xanga – @Paul_Partisan@xanga – @ElliottStrange@xangaThis post was submitted to Autisable as a response to a previous post shared on Autisable.  If you have an opinion about this post – I encourage you to submit a post.

    Any opinions shared on this site are the opinions of the Authors.  We don’t negate one persons opinion just because we may disagree.  Neither will we block or delete comments to that end.

    Our goal is not just to education and inform, but to provide an open forum for all discussions that relates in any way to the Autism Spectrum Disorder.

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts and opinions, and I look forward to any contributions that you may have.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 8:52 pm
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – Bullshit. Don’t presume to know a thing about me when you know nothing. Science has nothing to do with politics, so yes I will discredit biased “conservative” “studies”. Science is an unbiased field that tries to unravel mysteries, and answer questions about the world around us. No, you either provide actual studies, or submit yourself as a braggard and a fraud. You made the claim, now back it up like an adult. Don’t post general links. Post specific studies. It’s not my job to research for you. 

    I’ve argued against Meg many times, and would she ever post up an entry on a site like this like yours, I’d demand it be brought down as well. Your post has NOTHING TO DO WITH AUTISM. It’s a political propaganda piece and does not belong on this site. If she were to do the same, it’d be the same damn thing. You cannot possibly be this ignorant and dense. It’s not fathomable. 
    I only support discussion on material that discusses the proper topic of this site. This site is AUTISABLE. Is it “Political”?! NO! So take your propaganda elsewhere!

    Lastly, prove I’m a “liberal”. You seem hellbent on labeling me such without knowing my actual political stance. You’re so deeply biased and uneducated that you can’t recognise a “moderate”. I assume you disacknowledge “Green Party” members, as well as “Libertarians”? We can’t trust your position because you’ve proven yourself to be uneducated on the matter you’re trying so hard to “discuss”.

    Worse still is that you miss the entire point of this which is that your material is not suited for this forum.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 8:44 pm
    Permalink

    @RazielV@xanga – I’m not going to go digging for studies because even if I find that it has been studied, all you’re going to say is “OMG ITZ TEH KUNSERVATIVE BIAZ LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!”  But to make you happy, here’s one http://www.libertymind.com/

    It’s just appalling how you’re pushing to have me silenced on this site.  Let me ask you this: If someone were to post “Is Conservatism a Form of Autism?”, pointing out things like tea partiers are nazis and George W Bush is retarded, would you be pushing to get that article removed on the basis that it had nothing to do with autism?  No, in fact I’m sure you would enjoy every minute of it.  Don’t be a hypocrite.  

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 8:37 pm
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – That has nothing to do with it. It is incomprehensible that you don’t understand what is wrong here. But I don’t blame you, you wrote a post but the editor chose to run it. He’s the one who looks like a big fool, not you. You’re just another ignorant Tea Partier regurgitating what Glenn Beck told you on the radio.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 8:34 pm
    Permalink

    @RazielV@xanga – Oh, yeah, when it comes to the Tea Party I don’t see the point in dancing around and avoiding what most of them really are. Not literal Nazis, but the same mentality.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 8:32 pm
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – You don’t “buy into it” because you cannot see any middle point. You lack the basic education of politics to understand anything outside of the bipartisan system our country relies so foolhardedly on. You make the claim it’s a mental disorder, by all means show proof. Give me studies that prove it is one. As the proprietor of the initial claim in this debate, the burden of proof falls upon you. Until you can provide real evidence of your claim, you’re just blowing wind.

    And once again you prove my point that you cannot see outside your narrow viewpoint. This entire entry had nothing to do with Autism. At all. This site is about AUTISM. Not politics. That’s the point you’re not getting. You’re using your Asperger’s as a thin veil to promote your political views, without offering any actual insight into Asperger’s or how it even relates to this “discussion”. Instead, you posted propaganda against “liberals”, which others have already refuted adequately.
    Stop hiding behind our disability to promote your libel and slander. You’re a disgrace.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 8:30 pm
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – It is embarrassing that this was posted and more embarrassing that you don’t see why someone would be bothered by it. I hope the community that Autisable claims to serve turns on it and it becomes a ghost town. It was poor judgment for Autisable to feature this, but the decision to keep it up makes Autisable no better than Mancouch or Lovelyish. Even Lovelyish took down a post that offended people with Autism. It’s sad that you are OK with offending people with a disorder to further a political agenda. It’s sad that the editor is complicit in helping you do so. I suppose the Tea Party really is made up of brainless, Nazi buffoons just as I expected all along.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 8:27 pm
    Permalink

    Oh shut up, it’s an opinion, a thing of air; it doesn’t mean anything, but to you it has to mean something.  +rolls eyes+  You aren’t anybody important, and you and your worthless offspring shouldn’t even be here. You don’t have anything to give but whines.  Are you stupid?  Do you have a difficult time understanding basic emotions?  Can you not program yourself to get around it?  I have lots of problems, and I’ve learned how to get around and still people come because their only worth is my worthlessness, and they make me good and political to screw me over, so they can hand over even more for the ray machine, and you can dip into my worthlessness.  You are still a worthless person.  Whatever gives you value isnt’ that, so shut up if you want others to.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 8:24 pm
    Permalink

    @RazielV@xanga – I’m not the only person who thinks liberalism is a mental disorder.  In fact, there has been a huge valid debate over it for many years now and even several books written on the subject.  That is why I feel the editor of this fine discussion blog felt it was a legitimate argument.  Why would people feel the need to make victims out of brutal murderers and rapists in this country while disregarding the actual victims of those crimes?  Why would people feel it’s a good idea for a state to pass a law REQUIRING businesses, churches, and non-profit associations to hire cross-dressers when that would hurt those organizations (i.e. lost sales).  Why would people in America sympathize with America’s enemies while blaming America on all the problems in the world?  Why double standards?  Why would said people, when you dissent from their viewpoints by providing valid refutation or ask difficult contradictory questions, would label you as a hatemongeror?  

    You say I’m wrong, yet I don’t see you posting any refutations.  In fact, judging by the way you’re coming off, you just described yourself.

    And while you may be neither Democrat nor Republican, you’re certainly not in the middle.  I’ve heard that defense among liberals many times and I don’t buy into it.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 7:55 pm
    Permalink

    @Chibi_Son_Gokou@xanga – I feel angry and misrepresented, not victimised, you jerk. You posted propaganda and used a disability that many people suffer from to further your bullshit political agenda. The saddest part is that you’re too ignorant and ill-educated to see where you’re wrong; shifting blame to us because we’re pointing out your biased and idiotic hate speech. How dare you invoke the suffering of others to promote your personal political platform.

    I didn’t suffer through my entire school career just so some mealy-mouthed jackass could take my suffering and plaster it all over his pseudo-psychological/political egostroke. You’re a jerk, an uneducated buffoon, and a exploitive cretin.

    And for the record, I subscribe to neither Democratic nor Republican parties. I’m in the middle. As if that has a damn thing to do with my disability, you bell-end.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 7:43 pm
    Permalink

    liberalism is just a difference in opinion, it’s not wrong or right, just not something that you agree with. not a mental disorder.

    being closed minded, on the other hand..

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 7:42 pm
    Permalink

    After reading the replies on here, all I have to say is a majority of them prove my point.  These posters feel victimized by what I have said because they feel I am referring to them.  

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 7:26 pm
    Permalink

    Ed, I’m sorely disappointed in you for letting this run on Autisable. This site’s credibility has taken a massive blow by allowing such a bigoted, un-educated, and idiotic amount of dribble be released. I’m stunned. How does this have anything to do with Autism? It doesn’t. It’s an annoying propaganda piece that serves no purpose on here, nor does it educate people on Autism, or advance Autism awareness or research.

    In fact, it misuses Aspergers and Autism to create a frail and utterly transparent hate speech against “the left”. Shame on you, Ed, and shame on the author for exploiting a disability for political gain. 

    As a person with Autism AND Asperger’s, I find that the author of this post is an ignorant arsehole. See what I did there? 

    Keep this dreck off of this site. Show the rest of us some respect.
    -Scott.

    @Paul_Partisan@xanga – @ElliottStrange@xanga –  Hear hear!

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 7:16 pm
    Permalink

    wow . . . i’d say the fact that you’re so incredibly judgmental is its own disorder. way to not respect anyone who has a differing opinion.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 7:12 pm
    Permalink

    Finally an post on an ish site worthy of a recommend.

    I hope liberals can get the medication they need under Obamacare.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 6:32 pm
    Permalink

    WTF?! This is insulting in so many ways. I’m not even going to waste my time listing it. And I’m unsubscribing from this ISH site too.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 6:22 pm
    Permalink

    Wow. I’m assuming the person writing this is also afflicted with the “extremist disorder” that they misnamed?

    What an asshole.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 5:29 pm
    Permalink

    I guess you don’t know that extreme ideals exist on both sides of the spectrum. 
    If Liberalism is a mental disorder, so is Conservatism.
    I am liberal and I don’t think Obama is a god and I don’t think everything he is doing is a success nor do I think everything he is doing is a failure.  Hasty generalizations ruins your argument by making it logically unsound.
    No president has been perfect just like no party is perfect.  If you’re going to attack a party through a mental disability guise, do the same for the opposing ideals.  Because you spew biased information and you fail to recognize the similar childish game the opposing party plays, your ethos fails.
    Your argument (propaganda):  FAIL.
    Try again next time with some other partial view.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 5:21 pm
    Permalink

    As if Autisable had any credibility in the first place.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 5:15 pm
    Permalink

    This is easily the most biased, poorly sourced (see: not at all sourced), blanket statement, failure of an opinion article that I have ever read. It’s like… the ultimate spongecake at the top of the nutjob fundamentalist Olympus.
    A magnus opum of bullshit propaganda.

    A work of art; in the most grotesque fashion conceivable.

    Not to mention none of this has a single relevant correlation to autism. Nice going.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 3:33 pm
    Permalink

    “For example, people who worship Obama like he’s their God despite the fact that everything he has done in his 1 1/2 years as president has been a failure”

    Oh, really?

    Everything

    he has done in the past 18 months has been a failure?  Can you explain to me how that is any less extreme and stupid than claiming he’s done everything right?

    “They don’t seem to have a problem with Muslims blowing up buildings”

    And you’re whining about extremism while making these highly subjective non-factual statements? You should be ashamed of yourself for making these claims.  
    You are so delusional about who liberals are and what they believe.  You’ve drawn a disgusting caricature of a liberal which is not even loosely rooted in reality.  Honestly, get a grip. These monsters that you’ve fabricated in your fantasy just don’t exist.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 3:20 pm
    Permalink

    @Made2sing4Jesus@xanga – ‘Maybe more what you meant  is, Extremism is in itself a mental disorder. That for me seems spot on.’ – *pouts* You took my comment!! LOL That’s exactly what I was thinking.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 3:18 pm
    Permalink

    @who_I_really_want_2_be@xanga – It won’t.

    I really wish people would stop doing this. Extremists in any group–right-wing, left-wing, Black, White, Christian, Atheist–are a problem.

    In all honesty, this post is doing exactly what you’re accusing liberals of doing which is making claims without any concrete back-up.It’s not fair to lump every single liberal in the world into one group. There is such a thing as moderate liberalism and there are varying beliefs within that classification as well.

    The last part is just not true. Are you even in school right now?

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 2:47 pm
    Permalink

    I wouldn’t consider libralism, i.e. left wing political philosphy, as a mental disorder. But then again I don’t list autism that way either. However, the author has some good points about the political left-wing. Just look at some of the comments already. instead of discussing the issue they resort to vulgarities and insults.  I would more say that the left-wing has an unrealistic and already disproven view of reality and economic philosphy. Socialist Europe is imploding and whether we life it or not we are in a war for the future of democratic society. That those who live in a world of political correctness can’t see it and resent the reality is not the fault of the messenger. However, there are those who are liberals who have mental disorders  (just like conservatives) and their belief systems are taken over by their mental illness. The mental illness is not the belief system, how one handles the belief system is an indication of the mental illness.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 2:45 pm
    Permalink

    Maybe more what you meant  is,Extremism is in itself a mental disorder. That for me seems spot on.

    There are many extremist in all areas & they are the proverbial bad apple in every barrel.

    With 2 nephews within the Autism spectrum one with Aspergers I see that what they are is often Extreme so when they believe or don’t believe something there is an Extreme Black or White & they are very able & willing to physically & verbally enforce their opinions.

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 2:28 pm
    Permalink

    what the fuck does this right wing dribble have to do with autism? This is an insult to autistic people. Autisable should be taken down for allowing such an article to be posted. 

    Reply
  • June 6, 2010 at 2:24 pm
    Permalink

    Hmmm…. really? I mean, I lean a little more toward being conservative, but I certainly wouldn’t classify those who have an opposing viewpoint as having a mental disorder.  Oh geez.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Yes No