You tell them, Doc! I completely agree.
You have hit the nail on the head. But I wonder if it will be enough to even get the likes of Mitzell, Hess, Doc Farraday to look at viewpoints other than their own.
"Until then, they can keep their whining to themselves."
Yes, they COULD keep their whining to themselves, at least theoretically, but I'll give you 10 to 1 odds that they WON'T.
P.S. But I must add that not all of it was whining. A lot of it was the most vicious offensive attacks on Wolverine and Dr. Santy that I have ever seen.
Having read those excessive and outre comments, I am quite capable of believing that slightly under one half of the country (those of the Mitzell, Hess, etc. contingent) are indeed stark raving mad. Dr. Sanity has never accused them of that, as Mitzell falsely asserted, but I AM stating that they indeed give every appearance of being out of their psychotic, neurotic, paranoid minds.
With any luck, they'll froth and foam at the mouth so much in one of their demented fits of pique that they will short out their keyboards and computers.
However, I'm enough of a realist not to rely on or to place my hopes in luck.
I love cogent sites such as this one and I've sent your site to another good one: thetenoclockscholar.blogspot.com
A beautiful dissection of the moonbat mind.
I guess you can't use reason on irrational people. How then should we deal with them? I don't know, but the rise of the blogosphere has left us in a better position than we were in ten years ago. Strength in numbers!
Jeff @ The Bernoulli Effect
Don't forget to send that thread over to Ted Rall - he believes that only conservatives dish vitriol.
I would remind people that once upon a time (1950's to 60's) it was the right that had the moonbats (John Birch Society to name one). They believed that chlorination of water was a commie plot to make our children stupid and plyable, the Civil Rights Bill was a plot to get let the blacks get at our daughters, etc, etc. The real gift that Goldwater gave to conservatives was making a place for non-lunatics to be conservative and reasonable.
I hope that out of the fevered swamp a leftist politician arises to do the same for them.
David, you make an excellent point. Paranoia and the other defense mechanisms are obviously not limited to the Left. There are many well-documented instances of paranoia on the Right in the 50's and 60's. Nixon had the paranoid style, for example. These days, it is primarily the Left who exhibit these psychological defenses; probably because they have been greatly traumatized by the events of history in the last two decades.
Wow! Just discovered your blog and am finding lots of answers to the question of how (and why) the Addled Left think as they do. Thanks for a great dissection. I would really appreciate a discussion on "group think", as well. All smugness aside, I really would like to know how it is that people come to forfeit the formation of personal opinion in favor of parroting the pre-packaged schmark one finds on the more militant and radical blogs.
Thanks!
Annieburd
Anniebird asks :"All smugness aside, I really would like to know how it is that people come to forfeit the formation of personal opinion in favor of parroting the pre-packaged schmark one finds on the more militant and radical blogs."
That's interesting! I see alot of that here. People get on a roll calling people crazy, telling them to get on meds, that they are traitors and unAmerican...because they disagree. There are plenty of nut cases on the right...look at Zell Miller...he's no lefty! and he was front and center at bush's big party.
DR. Sanity mentioned Nixon...now there's a nut case! Then there's the drug addled Rush...Not all the crazies are on the left...you can find them everywhere from every persuasion...I've been told to get on meds because I don't agree and I think that kind of talk is very unAmerican. I read your point of view wolverine, because I'm curious about other viewpoints...but when I write back, you attack me. Reading other peoples opinions is a way to sort your own out. Dr. Santy has written alot of good posts here to comment on. I don't always agree with her but I don't call her names or attack her character. I try to understand where she's coming from and sometimes I do. She has never attacked me personally and I respect that. From the previous posts in this box it seems that if you don't agree and *parrot* what they say, you should just shut up. How in the world can you have a good discussion with people who all agree with you? I'm being very respectful in asking why this happens? I'm an American just like all of you are. I love my country, just as you do. I vote and pay taxes. Why is my opinion
any less valuable? Aren't we all in this together somehow?
Hi Christine...have you posted under another name or are you referring to another line of conversation? I tried to find you in the comments for this post and the first one on paranoia, but didn't find you....
I like the sentiment that it's good to read opposing views because it helps you clarify your own beliefs - hopefully, it means you're open to changing them if you find enough compelling evidence. You're right -we're all in this together, and it's important to engage in probing, challenging debate. My reference to mindless parroting was directed at posters who seem to string together Michael Moore's talking points and fling them into the comments section with rabid vitriol...this is not so much engaging dialogue as it is stirring the pot to see how much rancor you can whip up. Not productive, and obviously not the kind of post you would write.
With regard to paranoics coming in all political persuasions, check out the post by David above...he makes a similar point.
Anniebird
anniebird, I've only posted under my own name 
And yes, I was referring to other lines of conversation posted on this site. It gets frustrating when in conversation you disagree and are then bombarded with derogatory personal attacks. Michael Moore, in my opionion, has made some good points but he does not speak for me, I do. I listen, I read and sometimes I agree, other times I don't. I learn alot from opposing viewpoints and sometimes I change my mind, sometimes I don't. It gives me something to think about.
In another conversation here I was told to get on psych meds, because I disagreed. In another I was called dumbass, because I disagreed. I'd like to think that we can all learn from each other in one way or another. If we were all sitting at a table having a conversation how interesting would it be if we all agreed? I respect differing views and I try to understand them. Personal attacks discredit the whole conversation. Just wanted to let you know where I'm coming from on this and I look forward to conversations in the future.
p.s. yes, Davids post was a good one
Dr. Sanity said: David, you make an excellent point. Paranoia and the other defense mechanisms are obviously not limited to the Left. There are many well-documented instances of paranoia on the Right in the 50's and 60's. Nixon had the paranoid style, for example. These days, it is primarily the Left who exhibit these psychological defenses; probably because they have been greatly traumatized by the events of history in the last two decades.
President Nixon of course is the poster child for the conundrum, "Is it really paranoia if everyone really is out to get you?" Actually my take on Nixon was always that he was a very good defense lawyer, and when John Dean came to tell him about Watergate, he thought like a defense lawyer, not like the head of the government must.
When I hear the crys for freedom and equality become more and more feverish in the defense of those whoes avowed purpose is to destroy us, I remember the quote of the founder of the A.C.L.U.
----
(Baldwin Quote: Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU said the following.
"I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."
Mr. Baldwin has been a communist sympathizer/member for many years.)
---
How better to destroy something than to 'use' its own rules as perverted weapons. The ability to do this is only possible when the 'rules' have lost their original meaning by being 'interpreted' bit by bit. It takes a concerted long time effort to accomplish this. The goal is to establish a mind set, or simple perception, that there is 'unfairness' in some actions that the rational mind recognizes as being reasonable and defensive.
Since 'attack mode' seems to be the 'defense' against statements that promote this view, you should not have been too surprised by some of the more extreme comments.
I find both the radical left AND radical right to be ignorant,nutty and irrational.Makes me feel proud to be a moderate with more brains than the average childish idiot in America these days.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
