Is Hillary Mentally Ill?

[SUBMAN1]

Interesting read:

-S

...Diagnosis?
As the presidential campaign on the Democrat side evolves – or, in my opinion, devolves – there is ample evidence that Hillary has a few screws loose, if not a few bolts....
Read on here: http://www.therant.us/staff/swirsky/2008/03312008.htm

[JetSnake]

Liberalism is a mental illness.

[STEED]

I didn't know she was mad, I was under the impression she was barking mad.

[kiwi_2005]

I dont think shes mentally ill. A typical housewife who got where she is cause of her husband. The housewife exaggeration tends to win her over, eg Sniperfire in Bosnia. I can see the generals of war sittin round the roundtable discussing her short future as a candidate. They dont want a loose mouth as there boss...

*kiwi lights a cigar* ;)

[stabiz]

Liberalism is a mental illness.

Go shoot some cans.

[Sea Demon]

Liberalism is a mental illness.

Perhaps, it's just a symptom of mental illness. :hmm: At any rate, it is not good for one's mental health. That's for sure. The best example is liberal haven Berkeley, California. I challenge anybody to go down to one of those anti-(military/Bush/USA/war/Republican/economic liberty) rallies down there and not find mental illness. :lol: Berkeley is but one small example of what liberalism can do to people's heads. It ain't pretty.

And as far as Hillary. She's not mentally ill. She's just power hungry, and a compulsive liar. ;)

[JetSnake]

Liberalism is a mental illness.

Go shoot some cans.

I would but ammo is too expensive.

[nikimcbee]

Liberalism is a mental illness.

You mean communism?:up: :rotfl:

[NEON DEON]

I dont think shes mentally ill. A typical housewife who got where she is cause of her husband.

Oh boy:roll: :roll: :roll:

Hillary Clinton Graduated from Wellsely College with a BA degree in 1969.

She was the Valedictorian of her class.

Hillary then went to Yale and earned a Juris Doctor degree.

After she graduated from Yale, Hillary was the staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund.

Hillary also was on the faculty at the University of Arkansas where she headed the legal aid department.

This typical housewife is a lawyer, published author, and was a teacher for a major University.

I could go on but I think thats enough.:know:

[Von Tonner]

I dont think shes mentally ill. A typical housewife who got where she is cause of her husband.
Oh boy:roll: :roll: :roll:

Hillary Clinton Graduated from Wellsely College with a BA degree in 1969.

She was the Valedictorian of her class.

Hillary then went to Yale and earned a Juris Doctor degree.

After she graduated from Yale, Hillary was the staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund.

Hillary also was on the faculty at the University of Arkansas where she headed the legal aid department.

This typical housewife is a lawyer, published author, and was a teacher for a major University.

I could go on but I think thats enough.:know:
There are thousands upon thousands of women in the US who can boast far more impressive academic and professional achiements than those you have given to Hillary. The only thing is, they are not married to Bill. All one has to do is dig up the many articles on her run for the senate to see the importance and advantage the 'Clinton' name gave her over her Democtratic competitors at the time.

[Tchocky]

The deal was, she had the brains and he had the communication skills.
So he gets to be Governor & President, she gets him there.

Now the next great political communicator comes along when it's her turn, and she's pissed.

It's hard not to feel just a bit sorry for her.

Liberalism a mental illness? I smell Talking Points Syndrome, suggest two scoops of realism flavoured with pragmatics.

[SUBMAN1]

...Liberalism a mental illness? I smell Talking Points Syndrome, suggest two scoops of realism flavoured with pragmatics.Is it? Lets see if we can Google something on the subject. BB.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Hahahahaha! Maybe it really is! :D

Movement to Classify 'Liberalism' as Mental Disorder Gains Steam



http://swiftreport.blogs.com/news/2005/05/movement_to_cla.html

-S

[Sea Demon]

Looks like a worthy read:

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Mind-Psychological-Political-Madness/dp/097795630X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207077504&sr=8-1

The author's website:

http://www.forensicpsychiatrist.com

[JetSnake]

Now the next great political communicator comes along when it's her turn, and she's pissed.


You mean that well spoken empty suit?

Oprah's
Boy
Attacks
Middle-class
America

[NEON DEON]

Now the next great political communicator comes along when it's her turn, and she's pissed.


You mean that well spoken empty suit?

Oprah's
Boy
Attacks
Middle-class
America

Careful your use of the word boy could be construed as a racial slur.

According to the PC handbook on page 5,468, it clearly states that using boy is a no no.:eek: :eek: :eek:

[CCIP]

poor article, poorer posts supporting it. If liberalism is an illness of rhetoric, then your conservatism is just stunted development (I would use the politically incorrect term, but let's stay above such language, eh?) :roll:

The past few weeks have disappointed me in elections again - the rhetoric on both sides is getting as poisonous as it is moronic.

[JetSnake]

poor article, poorer posts supporting it. If liberalism is an illness of rhetoric, then your conservatism is just stunted development (I would use the politically incorrect term, but let's stay above such language, eh?) :roll:

The past few weeks have disappointed me in elections again - the rhetoric on both sides is getting as poisonous as it is moronic.

Ha ha. If you haven't noticed there aren't any conservatives running in this election cycle. Nor have there been for the past two elections.

[fatty]

Liberalism is a mental illness.

Liberal founding fathers of America are rolling in their graves just a little bit more.

[silentrunner]

Liberalism is a mental illness.
You mean communism?:up: :rotfl:
:up::up::up:

[silentrunner]

Liberalism is a mental illness.
Liberal founding fathers of America are rolling in their graves just a little bit more. Doubt it since modern liberalism turns out guys like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4WMqlfiQKo

[Sea Demon]

Liberalism is a mental illness.

Liberal founding fathers of America are rolling in their graves just a little bit more.

The founding fathers of America were certainly not liberal using todays definition of the word. They would be better described by todays non-interventionist, small government, libertarians at best. Nearly everything todays government loving liberal wants is anathema to the founding principles of the USA. Todays liberal Democrat spits on every founding principle outlined in the constitution, in particular economic freedoms, limited government, personal responsibility/self determination, and the acknowledgement that civil liberties are God granted inalienable rights that require a sense of morality and justness. The Founding Fathers of the USA would be utterly dismayed by the state of politics in America, but would be more inclined to see the side that believes in the above principles as more true to the core of the founding of America. That would be the conservative point of view. The Founders would be disgusted by liberal Democrats for much of what they advocate. And the list is long. By their own standards of how they handled "Benedict Arnolds" in those days / treachery against our military during a time of war, I'm sure those founders would advocate quartering or hanging many of todays liberals.

[JetSnake]

Liberalism is a mental illness.

Liberal founding fathers of America are rolling in their graves just a little bit more.

Is that what your revised history books teach about the founding fathers of America? :lol:

[NEON DEON]

The problem with extremism from the left or right is that the people who support these views are so blinded by their extremism that they see nothing else.

They will seek to vindicate themselves by grasping at information supporting their point of view while ignoring the source.

The far left will call anyone who disagrees with them right wing whack jobs just as the far right will label their dissenters communists.
Niether group is a friend of the Constitution yet both groups will lay sole claim as its protector.

The far right will constantly miss the point that in order for a democracy to be great the goverment must actively seek to protect the minority from the majority.

The far left in turn will over regulate the economy to the point they strangle free enterprise.

The far right and far left will fail to see the presidential oath of office for what is,
" to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" until, that is, they have changed the document to fit their own agendas.



Anyways, thats me story and I am stickin to it.

[fatty]

The founding fathers of America were certainly not liberal using todays definition of the word.
What are you talking about, 'today's definition?' Liberal and conservative are relative terms, not absolutes. Conservatives preserve the status quo, liberals advance it (or degrade it, depending on your perspectives.) A liberal in America is not the same as a liberal in Russia is not the same as a liberal in China. It slides also on the dimension of time: relative to the late 18th century, they were very much liberals. Advocating for...
...economic freedoms, limited government, personal responsibility/self determination, and the acknowledgement that civil liberties are God granted inalienable rights that require a sense of morality and justness.
...are all very liberal positions to take, relative to the time period. A revolt against the king was no doubt a huge slap in the face of their conservative contemporaries! Without their liberal stances, the USA might still be a British colony. Without any liberals, we might still be stuck in the feudal age. Truth is, you need liberals and conservatives both. Liberals get it right a lot of the time (as they did with the constitution or free market economy and anti-mercantilism) but you need conservatives to apply the brakes and make sure they don't take things too fast or over the top. I could not live in a country without a right to the left or a left to the right. You must also be careful not to confuse Democrat problems like bloated government or tax hikes as 'liberal' postures. It's hard sometimes to seperate out the dumb-assed vote pandering from what is actually 'liberal.' Possibly, as many here seem to argue that there hasn't been a true 'conservative' prez since Reagan, that neither has there been a seriously 'liberal' prez since... well, I don't know, maybe Truman? I don't know enough about presidential histories to make the call.
The Founding Fathers of the USA would be utterly dismayed by the state of politics in America, but would be more inclined to see the side that believes in the above principles as more true to the core of the founding of America. That would be the conservative point of view. The Founders would be disgusted by liberal Democrats for much of what they advocate. And the list is long. By their own standards of how they handled "Benedict Arnolds" in those days / treachery against our military during a time of war, I'm sure those founders would advocate quartering or hanging many of todays liberals.
Just as I'm sure they would advocate the quartering or hanging of many of yesterday's conservatives; the grandfather of conservatism, Edmund Burke, was a huge advocate of a strong monarchy and chided the French Revolution at length. If you disagree with his perspective that makes you even just the teeniest tiniest bit of a liberal ;)

[TheSatyr]

Recently,a group of Scholars came to the conclusion that Nixon of all people was the last true Liberal president. They point to his ending of the Vietnam war,his trip to China,detente with the USSR and his signing of numerous equal rights and other liberal bills as proof.

They also claim that that is why the Dems hated him so much. Nixon co-opted quite a bit of the Dem platform...and succeeded where the Dems probably would have failed. These Scholars believe it was that more than Watergate that brought Nixon down. Watergate was just a convienient excuse. The Dems pulled the same sort of crap,but both parties considered it to be business as usual,until the Dems (and the media) decided to use Watergate to take Nixon down.

[fatty]

Recently,a group of Scholars came to the conclusion that Nixon of all people was the last true Liberal president. They point to his ending of the Vietnam war,his trip to China,detente with the USSR and his signing of numerous equal rights and other liberal bills as proof.

They also claim that that is why the Dems hated him so much. Nixon co-opted quite a bit of the Dem platform...and succeeded where the Dems probably would have failed. These Scholars believe it was that more than Watergate that brought Nixon down. Watergate was just a convienient excuse. The Dems pulled the same sort of crap,but both parties considered it to be business as usual,until the Dems (and the media) decided to use Watergate to take Nixon down.

That's cool then, I had never heard that before, thanks for the perspective. If they have a strong point, and I can't say whether they do or not, it probably just reinforces that liberal does not necessarily equal Democrat and conservative does not necessarily equal Republican.

[JetSnake]

[quote=TheSatyr]That's cool then, I had never heard that before, thanks for the perspective. If they have a strong point, and I can't say whether they do or not, it probably just reinforces that liberal does not necessarily equal Democrat and conservative does not necessarily equal Republican.

Liberals are a firmly entrenched element of the party of democrats. Worse yet are the countless so called republican party elements beginning to share the same ideals with the democrat party, ie, George W. Bush and his spending like a drunken sailor, never would veto a spending bill.

Your point about conservative not necessarily equal Republican should be switched around to Republican not necessarily equalling conservatism.

I still stick by my original "talking point" that liberalism is a mental disorder.

[antikristuseke]

And how do you define this liberalism that you oh so politely dub a mental illness?

[Sea Demon]

What are you talking about, 'today's definition?' Liberal and conservative are relative terms, not absolutes. Conservatives preserve the status quo, liberals advance it (or degrade it, depending on your perspectives.) A liberal in America is not the same as a liberal in Russia is not the same as a liberal in China. It slides also on the dimension of time: relative to the late 18th century, they were very much liberals. Advocating for...

Well, it's pretty apparent I'm talking about todays American Liberal, who happens to reside mostly in the Democrat Party. Yes, there are a few who reside in the Republican party unfortunately. That is the only relevance I see that fits in regards to politics in America. And no, the Founding Fathers were nothing like them in anyway. Therefore, they are not spinning in their proverbial graves (as you asserted) when saying these American liberals show signs of mental illness. Todays American liberal Democrats have nothing in common with the Founders of my country in any way, shape, or form.

...are all very liberal positions to take, relative to the time period. A revolt against the king was no doubt a huge slap in the face of their conservative contemporaries! Without their liberal stances, the USA might still be a British colony. Without any liberals, we might still be stuck in the feudal age. Truth is, you need liberals and conservatives both. Liberals get it right a lot of the time (as they did with the constitution or free market economy and anti-mercantilism) but you need conservatives to apply the brakes and make sure they don't take things too fast or over the top. I could not live in a country without a right to the left or a left to the right. You must also be careful not to confuse Democrat problems like bloated government or tax hikes as 'liberal' postures. It's hard sometimes to seperate out the dumb-assed vote pandering from what is actually 'liberal.' Possibly, as many here seem to argue that there hasn't been a true 'conservative' prez since Reagan, that neither has there been a seriously 'liberal' prez since... well, I don't know, maybe Truman? I don't know enough about presidential histories to make the call.

Yes, definitions have changed. Today's leftist liberal is not the same people you speak of at all. I think we both understand that. Perhaps you were equating the 18th century liberal term to our Founding Fathers, instead of today's meaning. If the Founders knew that todays leftists hijacked the term "liberal" as they have done, I don't think the Founders would ever call themselves liberal. It's unfortunate that American Democrats, who are better labeled as big government socialists, have hijacked terms such as "liberal" and "progressive" to push an agenda that is regressive in nature, and devalues the principles of America's founding. In todays world, it is the conservative who values economic liberty, small/limited government, personal responsibility, individual excellence, and the acknowledgement that our civil rights are God granted and inalienable. Today's liberal spits on the above, for the most part and believes government is the answer to most problems. (ie. people are too dumb to be responsible for their own lives, therefore unable to assume responsibility for the actions of ones own decisions). They advocate government corrections of individual outcomes, and confiscations of private individual property to right suspected wrongs. The Founders of the USA did not intend what todays leftists want.

Just as I'm sure they would advocate the quartering or hanging of many of yesterday's conservatives; the grandfather of conservatism, Edmund Burke, was a huge advocate of a strong monarchy and chided the French Revolution at length. If you disagree with his perspective that makes you even just the teeniest tiniest bit of a liberal ;)

Nope. Disagreeing with that would not make anybody liberal in the modern sense. Just because you would oppose a strong monarchy does not turn you into a big government leftist ala modern day politics in any way at all. Perhaps Burke would see things alot differently with the late 20th-21st century perspective, and all that's happened after his time. ;)