Liberalism - Could it be caused by developmental delay?, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 17 times

reply posted on 1-6-2009 @ 02:33 PM by justsomeboreddude

reply to post by mental modulator

LOL, Obama will spend us into a deeper deficit by the end of the year than George Bush did in 8, while fighting 2 wars. Just wait until you get the tax bill and hyper inflation and then come tell me how it was GW's fault.

reply posted on 1-6-2009 @ 02:35 PM by MrVertigo

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by MrVertigo

Well until we get more parties to vote on we need to point out the insanity of liberal thinking which will eventually bankrupt the country. Both sides are not the same, and so we must point out the disorders of the other side so people dont fall into the trap of thinking they can have everything they want without working to get it.

I'm sorry but have you been asleep for the past ten years? Or do you consider the Bush administration as being "liberal thinkers"?

And why is it that you continue to describe the people that you don't agree with as having "disorders"?

What's next? Locking up liberals because they are a danger to themselves and their surroundings?

I don't think I like where this is going...

reply posted on 1-6-2009 @ 02:37 PM by justsomeboreddude

reply to post by MrVertigo

I am not saying we should lock up people that disagree with us. I am not after all the LIBERAL administration that labeled everyone who disagrees with their views a terrorist. I dont like where that is going!

reply posted on 1-6-2009 @ 02:42 PM by Astrithr

I have to agree with tothetenthpower. Your list of characteristics could apply to any extremist individual, regardless of political leaning, and many of them could even apply to someone that is generally apolitical.
These are mental health issues, not related to political leaning!

I consider myself a socialist, which some people think is extreme, but I don't exhibit any of those characteristics. I also took your little psych test and scored low in all categories.

To be honest, I'm getting more than a little tired of all this left/right bickering. There are far better things we could be doing with our time rather than insulting each other. May as well be walking around in circles for all the good it does.
It's OK if we don't agree on some things, how boring would it be if we did?
But we should all at least try to keep it respectful, and avoid calling each other diseased or worse.

Still, I'll give you a S&F for your thread because it was interesting, and I enjoyed taking the test.

reply posted on 1-6-2009 @ 02:42 PM by Avenginggecko

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
Let us examine the possibility that Extreme Liberalism is a developmental disease brought on by a lack of parental discipline or nurturing at an early age. First, let us take a look at common characteristics of toddlers that I think we can all agree on:

Okay let me put my extremely partisan blinders on, which apparently you also did for this smear peace that basically calls people who don't believe as you do 'retarded' under the transparent euphemism of "developmentally diseased". Sigh.

Thinking they are always right and saying NO to any idea that conflicts with their selfish desires
It is common when discussing something with an extreme liberal that they will promptly refuse to continue on once you stop bowing to their beliefs. They will just give up a logical discussion and do the equivalent of a three year old taking their ball and going home.

I'm sorry but Conservatives are just as liable to do this as liberals. No abortion, no gay marriage, no social programs, no taxes for the wealthy, no diplomacy, no UN, no affirmative action, no evolution, no separation of church and state, no, no, no, no. See how easy that was? I'd also appreciate you explaining how the above are rooted in selfishness because I don't see how any of the above are due to a selfish cause.

Magical Thinking
Most Extreme Liberals believe anything is possible. They commonly appear to believe that resources, including money, is unlimited and human nature will simply disappear if we are all nicer or are handed everything that we want or need. They seem to believe that money and resources magically grow on trees to support their social agenda, and the rest of us are unpatriotic for not wanting to hand ALL of our hard earned money to the government.

Once again: easily applied to conservative views. Let's look back on the years of Republican control after 9/11. What President had us with a surplus? Clinton? A Democrat? What President squandered our surplus, created a huge deficit for the country, enacted the Patriot Act, and suggested anyone who didn't agree with going to war or who opposed his views was unpatriotic? Bush? A Republican?

A need to have control of everyone around them

Once again please refer to the Patriot Act and the small library of Bush's Executive Orders that put us under more government scrutiny than we ever have been. And typically liberal policies are about protecting individual rights (abortion, gay marriage, for example) rather than trying to legislate control over others. Also, 'liberals' probably smoke just as much as conservatives. Every smoking ban I've seen enacted is enacted on a city-level basis, which should be something a conservative supports.

Dependence on their mother and father or a guardian for protection and sustenance
They want an entity to make everything fair and equal to all regardless of intelligence or ability or whether a person is a benefit to society or a burden.

Are you saying government shouldn't treat everyone equally? Who determines who's a burden? You? Do we throw them in ovens if they start burdening society? Do we put schizophrenics and downs syndrome people on the streets because they are a burden? Do we start euthenizing retirees that need additional government help?

Throwing Tantrums and whining as a way of getting their way
Many extreme liberals are oversensitive and throw a tantrum at the very list bit of someone questioning what they believe. You know the type. For example on ATS, they threaten to leave your thread or accuse you of this or that without any proof, and the only crime you have committed is to question them or test their logic and show that it may fail. They follow you around from thread to thread and insult you or better yet they post accusations on every thread you create, just for spite. Since many of them are against discipline and probably weren’t properly disciplined as a child they are left unequipped to control their childish emotions.

Many liberals don't like their rights getting stripped away when conservatives try to legislate their morality on the rest of the nation, just like conservatives threaten civil war when they think their gun rights get infringed. Typically, liberals may get mad when you "question" or "test" their logic with obvious propoganda, disinformation, and unreliable sources. For instance, the entire OP is basically an attack piece aimed at the liberal wing on ATS, and I fail to see how anything written in the OP questions or tests anyone's logic. Instead, it comes off as a tantrum itself and seems to only serve the purpose of collecting points and taunting others into an argument.

Utter self-centeredness

By definition, social welfare programs can't be "utter self-centerdeness", so you'll need to amend this point so it doesn't contradict or clarify why you think liberals are utterly self-centered people on the one hand and then enact broad social programs that benefit a large number of people (and many times not themselves) on the other.

In summation I'm very disappointed in this thread's content and execution, because it does nothing but reinforce a negative stereotype of conservatives, attack a group of people, and continue fostering a poisonous partisan divide.

reply posted on 1-6-2009 @ 02:45 PM by tothetenthpower

reply to post by MrVertigo

Finally somebody who nailed it on the head. These two political parties work for the same people. It's an artificial fight to keep people busy while the shadow politics rule.

For justesomeboreddude. I can't provide you with a link for those, the reason is these people were of the "liberal" political party, but are extremely conservatives on most other issues. They are only "liberal" when it suits them.

Which is the whole problem to begin with. We need to look beyond the headlines and propaganda in order to see what truly goes on.

~Keeper

reply posted on 1-6-2009 @ 02:49 PM by MrVertigo

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by MrVertigo

I am not saying we should lock up people that disagree with us. I am not after all the LIBERAL administration that labeled everyone who disagrees with their views a terrorist. I dont like where that is going!

I have no problem with people disagreeing with the Obama administration, but that was not the point of this thread.
Your OP advocated the idea that ALL liberals, which is more than half the country if you classify by voting, suffered from some form of developmental delay.

I believe that questioning your government is very important for a democracy, but questioning the mental capabilities of anyone who agrees with your political views is certainly not.

And I know that you weren't suggesting locking people up, I was exaggerating to make a point.

reply posted on 1-6-2009 @ 02:49 PM by justsomeboreddude

reply to post by Astrithr

I dont think my list could apply to any group of people. Only a developmentally disabled liberal would expect everyone to take care of everyone else regardless of whether they were the ones that screwed up their own life. Liberals just want a mother and father.

Also, I dont really see it as bickering. I see it more as trying to inform people that when the vote for liberals they are basically deciding to put their fate in the hands of a two year old. Does that seem like a good decision to you?

reply posted on 1-6-2009 @ 02:50 PM by AllexxisF1

reply posted on 1-6-2009 @ 02:52 PM by jjkenobi

The renowned Winston Churchill agreed with the OP however he put it more eloquently: "If you're not liberal when you're young, you have no heart. If you're not conservative when you're older, you have no brain." He didn't specify how young but it's still the same premise.

The policies liberals support and the actions they take on a certain level also seem to exist to keep it's follower's dumbed down and dependent on the government. Public education, welfare, unions, immigration, gun control, media control, the list goes on.

reply posted on 1-6-2009 @ 03:01 PM by mikerussellus

I don't know who is calling george Bush a conservative, in my mind, he definitely ain't! Just look at TARP and you can see his true colors. The demacrats are uber left. The GOP is just a little right of that left, but that doesn't make them conservatives.
I left the GOP because they started acting more and more like liberals.
And while I don't agree with everything libertarians stand for, they appear a little more sensible than any of these nut-jobs in DC.
I figure just aboutevery pol in DC could "ride the short bus" if they ever gave them IQ tests.
(I scored 154, but left MENSA, no hot babes there)
It should be apparent to all that this above thread applies to more than just liberals. Although it does fit them to a tee.

reply posted on 1-6-2009 @ 03:08 PM by MrVertigo

Originally posted by mikerussellus
(I scored 154, but left MENSA, no hot babes there)

Smart move

Though I think that most people would categorize Bush as a conservative.
But I think this is actually a good indication of how ridiculous this whole Liberal/Conservative division is.

People say that George Bush isn't really a conservative and there are lots of people saying that Obama isn't really a liberal.

I say chuck both of those paradigms and judge a candidate by his/her actions & character.

And for the love of god stop thinking that people who don't agree with you are somehow inferior to you or mentally challenged!

Please?

reply posted on 1-6-2009 @ 03:14 PM by justsomeboreddude

reply to post by Avenginggecko

Okay let me put my extremely partisan blinders on, which apparently you also did for this smear peace that basically calls people who don't believe as you do 'retarded' under the transparent euphemism of "developmentally diseased". Sigh.

I didnt call them retards, that was your word not mine. Maybe you just realized the truth.

I'm sorry but Conservatives are just as liable to do this as liberals. No abortion, no gay marriage, no social programs, no taxes for the wealthy, no diplomacy, no UN, no affirmative action, no evolution, no separation of church and state, no, no, no, no. See how easy that was? I'd also appreciate you explaining how the above are rooted in selfishness because I don't see how any of the above are due to a selfish cause.

Well saying no to peope murdering their own child is no different than saying no to murder in general. Are you trying to say you are pro-murder?

I dont think most conservatives so no to some social programs. Just no to the ones created by FDR which basically create a welfare state where someone can have the same things a working person has without working. Also, they dont say no to diplomacy, they try it, but if it doesnt work they move on to what does. That is way more sensible than playing games with some idiot like Hussein or Ahmybreathisbad.

All the above were rooted in selfishness because liberals want a government that will take care of them so they dont have to risk anything or face consequences when they make mistakes. They want a Moooommmmyyy and Daaaaaaadddyyyyyyy to come and rescue them for the rest of their lives.

Once again: easily applied to conservative views. Let's look back on the years of Republican control after 9/11. What President had us with a surplus? Clinton? A Democrat? What President squandered our surplus, created a huge deficit for the country, enacted the Patriot Act, and suggested anyone who didn't agree with going to war or who opposed his views was unpatriotic? Bush? A Republican?

Prime liberal magical thinking here. Blame Bush for a deficit that was partially created by two wars caused by us being attacked on 911. The deficit was also created by a declining economy. A president cant control the economy he can only attempt to limit the affects. I guess in your mind we wouldnt have a deficit because we would have just gave the terrorists a time out or a gentle smack on the hand and hoped they learned their lessons. Bush didnt label a bunch of Americans terrorists unlike Obamas DHS director who labeled anyone not a liberal a potential terrorist. Jesus.

Once again please refer to the Patriot Act and the small library of Bush's Executive Orders that put us under more government scrutiny than we ever have been. And typically liberal policies are about protecting individual rights (abortion, gay marriage, for example) rather than trying to legislate control over others. Also, 'liberals' probably smoke just as much as conservatives. Every smoking ban I've seen enacted is enacted on a city-level basis, which should be something a conservative supports.

The patriot act was used to open powers to hunt for terrorists. You have to have the ability to look at everyone to a degree. It is not like he abused it and threw a bunch of liberals in jail. In fact, if you look back Bush was quite kind to the antiwar crowd, and acknowledged their right to protest. Unlike the liberals who run around screaming racist everytime you disagree with Obama.

Individual rights.
1. Abortion - what about the rights of the baby? Did he decide for mama to get knocked up when she wasnt prepared to have a child?
2. Gay rights - what intrinsic rights do gays have to marry?

Cmon dont even bring up smoking bans. Liberals treat smokers like they are a bunch of people running around spewing out Sarin gas. I dont even smoke, but I dont throw a hissy fit and act like I just caught cancer everytime somebody lights up a cig.

Are you saying government shouldn't treat everyone equally? Who determines who's a burden? You? Do we throw them in ovens if they start burdening society? Do we put schizophrenics and downs syndrome people on the streets because they are a burden? Do we start euthenizing retirees that need additional government help?

No I am saying the government should treat everyone fair and let people live and die by their own choices. If retirees need more help, its their own fault for not saving their money or making stupid investments. Why should we have to help them? Also, most people regardless of party support helping trully handicapped or mentally ill people, but you cross a line when you want to hand out money to people with add or slightly low iq, like its our fault somebody is an idiot.

Many liberals don't like their rights getting stripped away when conservatives try to legislate their morality on the rest of the nation, just like conservatives threaten civil war when they think their gun rights get infringed. Typically, liberals may get mad when you "question" or "test" their logic with obvious propoganda, disinformation, and unreliable sources. For instance, the entire OP is basically an attack piece aimed at the liberal wing on ATS, and I fail to see how anything written in the OP questions or tests anyone's logic. Instead, it comes off as a tantrum itself and seems to only serve the purpose of collecting points and taunting others into an argument.

Typical liberal thinking. Liberals think they have a right to the government solving their problems and taking care of them. That infringes on everyone elses right to keep more of their hard earned money.

By definition, social welfare programs can't be "utter self-centerdeness", so you'll need to amend this point so it doesn't contradict or clarify why you think liberals are utterly self-centered people on the one hand and then enact broad social programs that benefit a large number of people (and many times not themselves) on the other.

This is total self centeredness because liberals enact laws to suppor themselves they dont care who else it helps as long as it helps them or they dont have to get their feeling hurt when some fool gets what is coming to them.

In summation I'm very disappointed in this thread's content and execution, because it does nothing but reinforce a negative stereotype of conservatives, attack a group of people, and continue fostering a poisonous partisan divide.

Lets censor me because I disagree with you. I didnt say you had to read it or post here. Typical liberal tactic of deflecting their problems onto everyone else.

reply posted on 1-6-2009 @ 03:17 PM by ravenshadow13

reply to post by justsomeboreddude

You're kidding me right?

You're not serious.

You can't possibly be serious about this thread.

I mean whether it's true or not (I don't think it is) you can't just go around blatantly insulting all liberals like that.

[edit on 6/1/2009 by ravenshadow13]

reply posted on 1-6-2009 @ 03:18 PM by LucidDreamer85

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Nice post....If only we could get rid of politicians. Or even better.......maybe more checks and balances need to be put in place as to not allow this country to get to where it has.

I'm starting to wonder if we could bring back our founding fathers an ask them their opinions of how we run this country, I'm pretty sure they would be considered terrorists by our government, just for disagreeing with how they do stuff.

We let the rich spoiled brat from down the street take over this country ( not obama, but rich politicians in general) And then he just buys muscle and law makers to make everything the way he wants it.

Meaning that from what was allowed years ago, we are suffering from it now....

reply posted on 1-6-2009 @ 03:23 PM by justsomeboreddude

reply to post by ravenshadow13

Its just a question, a theory to be discussed. Nobody has refuted it yet. I wouldnt be offended if some one said my actions could be an indication that I was developmentally delayed. If I disagreed I would explain why they are wrong, not go off all insulted in a huff.

reply posted on 1-6-2009 @ 03:32 PM by Republican08

If by some chance their not controlled by the PTB, they have to be wrong pathologically.

It doesn't make any logical sense to complain about a debt, then triple it while still complaining about the previous debt, then saying that the new and improved tripled defecit is going to help the economy.

I could go on and on, not taking sides here, I just notice most the really screwy ideas from liberals.

reply posted on 1-6-2009 @ 03:33 PM by ravenshadow13

reply to post by justsomeboreddude

I've been tested for developmental stuff numerous times- they've all come back negative except for the fact that I have a high IQ. And I'm a liberal.

I mean unless you want to prove that all my posts and threads indicate that I'm developmentally challenged?

reply posted on 1-6-2009 @ 03:34 PM by mikerussellus

reply to post by ravenshadow13

Is it an insult if it is true?
I would attempt to prove the theory wrong if, (big if) I was a liberal. . .

reply posted on 1-6-2009 @ 03:35 PM by drwizardphd

I don't really like to throw this word around, because in my opinion it usually gets used far too often at inappropriate times.

Political Trolling, anyone?

This entire thread is ludicrous. Obviously the OP's only intention is to strike up another pointless left vs. right bicker-fest.

A serious question for the OP: are you under the age of 16? If not, I would posit that you suffer from developmental delay. Because there is no way an adult mind could envision such a hair-brained idea as the one in your original post. All it boils down to is name-calling and it reeks of partisan bias. None of your points even applies to liberalism, they are all just fanciful stereotypes.

Don't you have homework to do?

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^