Why do I, and others, feel Liberalism is a mental disorder?

**Francisco Montana** · November 30, 2005, 12:43 AM

If I may borrow from the words of Micheal Savage.

I had this funny quote I just thought of, and shared it on MSN with a buddy from TWC. He chuckled and we agreed it would make a great forum signature.

But I hate to be so direct, and really do choose to seek middle ground with my less conservative bretheren.

So in the spirit of fun and label bashing here in the Mud-Pit.

This sums up my feelings about socialism.

Socialist: "Wouldn't it be nice if the Govt would pay for everything for us?"

Conservative: "Wouldn't it be nice if the hippy thinking that would put down the bong and get a job so I don't have to keep paying his way through life?"

:laughing:

Enjoy that one, my more leftist-leaning Mud-Pitters.

**RusskiSoldat** · November 30, 2005, 12:45 AM

I agree, liberalism is incredibly bad.
As a Stalinist, I disagree with your view on socialism.
In the USSR, everyone was forced to do a job of some sort in order to make sustaining them worthwhile for the government.

**Lee1026** · November 30, 2005, 12:48 AM

and because they can't get fired, everyone did a extremely poor job on those jobs.

On topic: Define liberalism.

**Beetlecat** · November 30, 2005, 01:12 AM

Originally Posted by lee1026

and because they can't get fired, everyone did a extremely poor job on those jobs.

On topic: Define liberalism.

Bravo for your second comment.

In these days when 'liberal' and 'conservative' are thrown around like cuss words (when were they not?). I doubt we'll get a consistant definition of either side from the other.

I think 'liberalism' (as I understand it) must seem like odd to cons/neocons due to the fact that it seems irrational, counterintuative, or maybe even counterproductive.

The underlying concepts behind the 'liberal' and 'conservative' agendas will forever be pulling against each other in our, or any society. It's a shame that in the US these days, they're mostly being used now in place of sports teams or colors and have no real purpose other than a rallying point for an 'us vs. them' battle line.

<snark>
Now, by trying to thoughtfully analyze the issue, am I going to be pegged as a liberal?
</snark>

Cheers!

**Darth Wong** · November 30, 2005, 12:49 AM

Hardcore conservatives view liberalism as a mental disease because they have never made a serious effort to imagine what it would be like to be a liberal. It's not hard to imagine myself as a conservative; I used to be one. But for the hardcore conservative, liberals are like some kind of alien non-human species: totally incomprehensible, their motivations based upon evil brainwashing and analytically opaque.

**Francisco Montana** · November 30, 2005, 12:51 AM

I used to be a liberal....then I started paying taxes!

But nice try Darth Wong, not a bad approach.

**Darth Wong** · November 30, 2005, 12:57 AM

Originally Posted by Lord Alameda

I used to be a liberal....then I started paying taxes!

But nice try Darth Wong, not a bad approach.

I've been paying taxes since I started working in 1994. Why aren't I a conservative? Can you imagine what I might be thinking?

**Lee1026** · November 30, 2005, 12:53 AM

liberalism started as free-market capalists. Something to think about. Also, Liberalism can mean other things, like the desire for a small gov't, a desire for a small military, etc. Liberal positions on those things tends to lower taxs, not raise them.

**Francisco Montana** · November 30, 2005, 01:10 AM

Beats me (maybe it's something in the cool-aid?), but if we are trying to impress with dates, taxes were just as high in 1985, junior.

(good night!)

**Darth Wong** · November 30, 2005, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by Lord Alameda

Beats me (maybe it's something in the cool-aid?), but if we are trying to impress with dates, taxes were just as high in 1985, junior.

(good night!)

We're not trying to impress with dates. I'm just pointing out the falsehood of your implication that liberals are people who don't pay taxes. And by saying "maybe it's something in the cool-aid", you only prove me right: you have not made a serious effort to understand why a liberal might think the way he does.

**Richard the Lionheart** · November 30, 2005, 01:14 AM

Liberalism and Conservatism balance each other out. I think both are necessary.

And this is coming from a Republican...that's right I voted for Bush.

**Francisco Montana** · November 30, 2005, 01:18 AM

BTW, real quick, before I turn in...

For those who are throwing lables around and saying "liberalism" is, or isn't this, or that..blah blahblah (typical psychobabble to throw you off topic, they are masters at it).

Before you continue down that road, please stop trying to avoid the point of the thread.

Someone is paying for all these "freebies" and unless everyone realises the coffers are not bottomless and starts 'reevaluting' what is nessecity and what is 'entitlement'...this ship will sink.

no if's and's or but's

We're done for.

So call it what you will, Socialism, Communism, Liberalsism, and sit there and tell me what it does and doesn't stand for all you want. You are completely missing the point and basically spamming this thread.

Goodnight.

**RusskiSoldat** · November 30, 2005, 01:18 AM

and because they can't get fired, everyone did a extremely poor job on those jobs.

Oh, they could be fired.
It was slightly differrent though.
By which I mean "have a bullet fired through their head" which seemed to be a fine motivator.
Stuff built in Stalin's time rarely needs maintenance and is still the backbone of Russian infrastructure.

**Lee1026** · November 30, 2005, 01:19 AM

and that is why in soviet russia, the vast majority of workers were drunk by noon?

**Richard the Lionheart** · November 30, 2005, 01:24 AM

Look at it this way...if only conservatives existed, then we'd be looking at a fascism.

**RusskiSoldat** · November 30, 2005, 01:26 AM

and that is why in soviet russia, the vast majority of workers were drunk by noon?

If you can provide something other than alcoholism related insults (such as statistics), it would just great.

**Lord Rahl** · November 30, 2005, 03:03 AM

Originally Posted by RusskiSoldat

If you can provide something other than alcoholism related insults (such as statistics), it would just great.

When the amount of alcohol being bought after welfare checks are sent out in the USA skyrockets.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/closetohome/...html/budg.html

The new welfare law requires welfare recipients to obtain employment within certain time periods. Studies have shown that at least 16-20% of welfare recipients have alcohol and drug problems, most of whom will need treatment before they are able to work. This could translate into adding 400,000 to 800,000 welfare recipients to an already overwhelmed treatment system. And these welfare recipients have children who are themselves at risk for drug and alcohol problems, and hence could benefit from targeted prevention services.

http://www.gannett.com/go/difference...rt11/mess.html

The NIAAA estimated that alcohol abuse resulted in impairments for which federal and state governments paid $12.5 billion in benefits. It estimated that alcoholism also resulted in $820 million in extra administrative overhead.

"While it would appear that 30 to 40 percent of the beneficiaries do use illicit drugs and/or abuse alcohol, it would appear that for most of these individuals their use of alcohol and psychoactive drugs is not of such a severity to have impaired their ability to gain employment," it concluded.

This provides a lot of info,

http://www.nhpf.org/pdfs_ib/IB771_Su...use_3-7-02.pdf

Those on welfare are twice as dependent on alcohol than non-welfare recipients.

**Mr Jones** · November 30, 2005, 03:18 AM

and what, may i ask, does that have to do with the rest of the thread, lord rahl? the alcoholism they were talking about was in soviet russia. there was no need to go bashing on welfare people.

**Zuwxiv** · November 30, 2005, 01:27 AM

Edit: I spelled communism wrong. Stupid keyboard.

Socialist: "Wouldn't it be nice if the Govt would pay for everything for us?"

Socialists don't think the government should papy for everything. They just think that the government should pay for basic necessities of life. The impression that many get is that socialists want to tax the rich so they don't have to do anything. This is not true. Socialism's weakness is in laziness, but not of the socialist, but of the human. If you could do a half-assed job and get the same dismal pay, how hard would you work? Now, if you are thinking of the best interests of the country, you would work hard. If everyone works hard, it works. But the problem is, when people are greedy, they will want everything without giving anything. Kind of sounds like richer conservatives saying that they want to benefit from the current system, but don't want to pay taxes to support it. Muwahahah.

Conservative: "Wouldn't it be nice if the hippy thinking that would put down the bong and get a job so I don't have to keep paying his way through life?"

I'm sure that every liberal/socialist is a drug user. (You aren't making a distinction between the two, a problem inherited from the commie-hating cold war. Not every liberal is socialist. Not every socialist is even liberal. Look at Stalin.) In fact, it is the socialists who believe that everyone should have a job. Modern conservative capitolists exspect some level of unemployment, it is a natural part of a free market economy / market economy. Socialists want everyone to work. Everyone. And yes, the rich should pay out of their pocket to help the less fortunate. Socialism helps those who can not help themselves. (The elderly, the sick, etc get care from the government. Rich people pay for it, yes. But the poor pay for it as well. And if you are worried about socialism decreasing your pay, then why do nordic countries, which are highly socialistic, have some of the highest gross domestic products?)