Top Shrink Concludes Liberals Clinically Nuts

[mbws]

Someone start a 'conservatives are nuts' thread, and let's see where that goes. A social experiment, if you will.

I thought it was a "Given."

[chomerics]

I dunno. But it's clear you don't want to sack up and explain WHY liberals are embarassed to be refered to as such. "Ohhh, noooo, we're PROGRESSIVES!!!!"

That is what you were taught to think hog, and the reason is because of the ****ization of the word liberal from the quixotic pack mentality of the GOP. I don't consider myself a liberal, but I would wholeheartedly rather be associated with a liberal then a conservative.

Proud conservative here, who doesn't have to name-call or skirt the issue. But maybe pride and confidence are exclusive to our side.

Nah, not pride and confidence, I would rather say ignorance and bumptiousness.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Seriously, I think all people are nuts.

[The_cavalierman]

That is what you were taught to think hog, and the reason is because of the ****ization of the word liberal from the quixotic pack mentality of the GOP. I don't consider myself a liberal, but I would wholeheartedly rather be associated with a liberal then a conservative.

Nah, not pride and confidence, I would rather say ignorance and bumptiousness.

[One Shot]

The liberals have gotten us to where we are today.

[Switchgear]

Actually the article did it's job for those who could understand it's purpose. For those paying attention the Times did not claim McCain had an affair. It was his staffers and aides that assumed as much because of McCain's poor judgement.

The NYT was right to report it..

McCain was an idiot to place himself in a position to have his ethics questioned in the middle of a political campaign. If the story were false McCain could sue...but he did not because the facts of the story are correct.

He just hoped it would blow over...but this is going to follow him despite what some may think.:laugh:

Funny how you gave up on "100 years in Iraq" and moved to "He hasn't sued the NY Times". You point out yourself that the article never claimed that McCain had an affair, so what is he supposed to sue them for? Had the Times run a similar article about Obama or Hillary, would you be going on about them not suing?

[The_cavalierman]

Funny how you gave up on "100 years in Iraq" and moved to "He hasn't sued the NY Times". You point out yourself that the article never claimed that McCain had an affair, so what is he supposed to sue them for? Had the Times run a similar article about Obama or Hillary, would you be going on about them not suing?

Looks like you jumped to a flawed conclusion my friend.

1. McCain is not off the hook for his 100 years in Iraq comment because the press and the American people and his final opponent are gonna hold him to his words. You forgot McCain's bomb Iran gaffe that will also make him look like a war monger when the American people are fed up with republican rhetoric.

2. Not sure about your point on the NYT article but my point was McCain allowed himself to be placed into a position where his own aides acted to protect him from himself regarding this lobbyist. A guy running for president should be a lot smarter and make better decisions. That is just more ammo to use against him when the presidential debates start.

3. If a democrat did something that dumb then I would be all over it.

[Predicto]

I dunno. But it's clear you don't want to sack up and explain WHY liberals are embarassed to be refered to as such. "Ohhh, noooo, we're PROGRESSIVES!!!!"

Proud conservative here, who doesn't have to name-call or skirt the issue. But maybe pride and confidence are exclusive to our side.

I'm proud to be a liberal and I never hide it.

[Destino]

The reason many seem to dodge the liberal name is because the right constantly redefines it and frankly wants it defined as anything to the left of them. That's not a real definition, that's a BS ploy to try to paint your opponent as you want them to be.

Democrats today:

- Balanced budget

- Less taxes on the MAJORITY of Americans (cuts for the middle and lower class)

- A less intrusive government (like it or not secret phone tapping and increased access to private info is MORE intrusive)

These aren't the things that the right used to described liberals 10 years ago. If the right would define it in a way that wasn't a moving target meaning "anything we dislike"...

[Switchgear]

Looks like you jumped to a flawed conclusion my friend.

1. McCain is not off the hook for his 100 years in Iraq comment because the press and the American people and his final opponent are gonna hold him to his words. You forgot McCain's bomb Iran gaffe that will also make him look like a war monger when the American people are fed up with republican rhetoric.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/smear_or_be_smeared.html

The DNC paints McCain as favoring "endless war" in Iraq. What McCain actually said is that he wouldn't mind a hundred-year troop presence "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

So I was wrong to conclude you'd stopped smearing McCain in a way you know is false. Got it. I'll make sure to post the context whenever I see you try to trot out that bit of misinformation.

2. Not sure about your point on the NYT article but my point was McCain allowed himself to be placed into a position where his own aides acted to protect him from himself regarding this lobbyist. A guy running for president should be a lot smarter and make better decisions. That is just more ammo to use against him when the presidential debates start.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24pubed.html?pagewanted=print

The pity of it is that, without the sex, The Times was on to a good story. McCain, who was reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee in 1991 for exercising “poor judgment” by intervening with federal regulators on behalf of a corrupt savings and loan executive, recast himself as a crusader against special interests and the corrupting influence of money in politics. Yet he has continued to maintain complex relationships with lobbyists like Iseman, at whose request he wrote to the Federal Communications Commission to urge a speed-up on a decision affecting one of her clients.

Much of that story has been reported over the years, but it was still worth pulling together to help voters in 2008 better understand the John McCain who might be their next president.

I asked Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, if The Times could have done the story and left out the allegation about an affair. “That would not have reflected the essential truth of why the aides were alarmed,” she said.

But what the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed.

Truth be damned, it makes McCain look bad, so innuendo away, right?

3. If a democrat did something that dumb then I would be all over it.

I'll believe when I see it.

[GibbsFactor]

I'm proud to be a liberal and I never hide it.

Right there with you man!

[Helter_Skelter]

why is anyone taking this guy, or this thread seriously?

:whoknows: I didnt think any would.

[The_cavalierman]

So I was wrong to conclude you'd stopped smearing McCain in a way you know is false. Got it. I'll make sure to post the context whenever I see you try to trot out that bit of misinformation.

Isn't funny how the American people believe whatever they want to believe despite what factcheck.org says? McCain said it and I guarantee you he is going to hear about it again and it won't be in a positive manner.

Truth be damned, it makes McCain look bad, so innuendo away, right?

Absolutely comical how the masters of distortions, denials, lies and swiftboating are now attempting to playing the victim.:cry:

Puh...leeezzzee:laugh:

[Switchgear]

Isn't funny how the American people believe whatever they want to believe despite what factcheck.org says? McCain said it and I guarantee you he is going to hear about it again and it won't be in a positive manner.

Absolutely comical how the masters of distortions, denials, lies and swiftboating are now attempting to playing the victim.:cry:

Puh...leeezzzee:laugh:

I'm not a Republican, just interested in the truth. Thanks for openly admitting that you aren't.

[The_cavalierman]

I'm not a Republican, just interested in the truth. Thanks for openly admitting that you aren't.

Right....and that is why all of your posts are in defense of McCain. Your posts betray you grasshopper. You are only interested in your version of the truth.