drunken sailors: part 6 - or - with "conservatives" like this, who needs liberals?

i liked the dialogue between queen_spoo and myself regarding Bill Maher's recent verbal meltdown concerning First Lady Laura Bush - especially how i somehow managed to morph the discussion back into my current talking points concerning the utter lack of fiscal restraint among the leadership anywhere in the federal government. :-)

thus, i post that dialogue here as the 6th installment in the series "drunken sailors"...

queen_spoo said...

I saw this article earlier today as well, and it shows such the double standard today that liberals are excused in saying things of this nature with hardly a blink, but if a Republican/conservative/etc. said it, they would be roasted in the media and the call for firing would begin.

This comment by Maher is particularly scary: "but the idea that we somehow humanize any person because somebody else loves them is ridiculous." Is he implying that he denies human qualities to someone he hates, regardless of if they're loved by others? That's a dangerous position...

Perhaps you are right about the mental disorder--it should be added to Axis II diagnoses: Liberal Personality Disorder.

9/27/2005 10:34 PM

---

xopher (the kola nut) said...

spoken like a true mental health professional! ;-)

well, that's Savage's assertion - not mine - that liberalism is a mental disorder. it's a cute saying for those of us on the right, but they seem fighting words, with little chance of winning converts. and there's a good point in that phrase... "winning converts"... my desire to see leftists rightists is motivated by a deeply-seated conviction that they are causing themselves, their families, and their society grievous injury with the actions based upon their thinking (feeling). it's far more that than a desire to see more members on "my team". shoot - i can't even figure out what "my team" is! ;-)

but back to that point (liberalism as a mental disorder): it does appear to me that the actions of liberals do not always (or often, in the case of many) square with the core of their ideology, which to me would seem a tell-tale sign of delusion or denial - which could be termed a form of insanity, though i don't pretend to be fully versed in the terminology of the DSM-MCXVIII.

not that "conservatives" hold to the core of their ideology very well today - which is precisely what has me so irked (and having written the 5th part of a series entitled "drunken sailors"). conservatism is innately more difficult than liberalism, for it entails firmly believing (and living) the desirous, but difficult lesson (which should be) learned in childhood: sometimes "no" is the correct answer, no matter how hard an answer it may be.

such is why i love the comment of "Cavalier" i quoted in part 5: "With Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?" one could as easily add, "with conservatives like this, who needs liberals?"

9/28/2005 8:49 AM