Index for Insanity, Inc.
Is Liberalism a Mental Illness?
With the result of the recent election, it seems more than ever that there are some issues with people. Often there have been issues which it does not seem to make sense the position that Liberals take, but to see how bend out of shape over the election seems to make it extremely clear that there is a problem with them.
Let's start with an easy one: Voter ID laws.
Liberals claim that anyone who pushes voter ID laws are racist, as well as claiming that there is no voter fraud, so there is no reason for the laws. Why don't they understand that if you can't ask to see an ID for someone who is voting then you have absolutely no means of knowing who exactly is voting and no means of being able to determine if there is voter fraud or not?
The racist claim is a bit more interesting. Why is it that Liberals don't seem to think that certain people have IDs and don't have the ability to get IDs? If they don't have an ID, how exactly have they gotten by in life? You need an ID to get a job, open a bank account, etc., so who exactly would not have an ID? Doesn't the claim that certain races don't have an ID and are not able to get one seem to be quite racist?
One common Liberal claim of racism is in regards to anyone who asks about Obama's birth certificate. They say that it is racist since Obama is the only one who has ever been asked for a birth certificate. Since being a citizen is required to be President, what is wrong with asking for proof? Then there is the other reality aspect in that John McCain was asked for his birth certificate because there was some question as to where exactly he was born. So the claim that Obama was the only one asked means the basis for the racist claim is bogus. The problem is that you can never get Liberals to accept this and they keep repeating their lines like a parrot.
There was an interesting discussion with a person who made claims about the recent election. There were many aspects which showed that he was not in touch with reality, but some of the more interesting aspects was the things that he made up.
One thing that he got wrong was that he seemed to think that there was one election, but the reality is that there were 51 separate elections (each state and Washington DC). He also thought that all the ballots were the same. But it got more interesting when he claimed that people ONLY vote for the person they want to be president. No one ever votes for a candidate to make a statement, like for a third party candidate. He also said that knowing that the state in which you live and knowing that a given candidate is going to win will NEVER affect how a person votes. Even when he was told that it affected how a person voted, the denial was that you could never prove that there was another person made a change in how they voted.
It also got good when he wanted to make claims about what the votes meant. Since he knew why people voted, only for the candidate that they wanted as president, that meant that because Trump did not win the popular vote Trump is unpopular. It does not matter that if you look at the CA election, more than the difference in vote exists right there. In CA there was really no reason to vote for Trump as he was never going to win there, but this guy refuses to accept that as he is locked into Trump being unpopular. I am not sure how you can consider someone to not be popular when he won more states, which is what really counted in order to win the Electoral College, and more counties across the country. Trump won states in which Hillary was expected to win, but that means nothing.
The bottom line is that there was no way to convince this person that he could not assign meaning to the popular vote the way he wanted to. What the vote really showed is that Trump is not popular in Liberal big cities.
Trump was asked if he would accept the election results and said that he would have to wait and see, which is the only reasonable answer. If you were to see an issue, then you would want to reserve your right to contest the election, just like Al Gore did. The liberals went wild and attacked Trump for this and made all sorts of claims as to what it meant about him. So then can someone explain why all of that does not apply to the Liberals who refuse to accept the election results?
Just for the record, I am not a Trump supporter.
Here is an interesting meme which shows a clear problem with reality for Liberals. The title is "Trump unites America against Trump". If you add up the numbers, it comes to 1.7 million. There is slightly more than that in the United States. To somehow claim that some protests show that America is united against Trump is quite absurd, to say the least. But it seems that they need to make such bizarre claims in order to make themselves feel better.
Click here for the dictionary.com definition for the word unite
Can any sane person explain how such a small protest can hope to claim that America is united against Trump?
Another aspect to consider is illegal aliens. An illegal alien violates the law when the illegally cross the border. They seem to get bend out of shape when it is mentioned to put up a wall to stop this illegal action, although there are better solutions in my opinion. They don't get that if an illegal alien works in the US, then it is illegal. They would either have to work under the table or commit identity theft in order to work. In either case it is unlikely that that are paying the proper taxes, which means tax evasion, which is also illegal. Elected officials sworn into office saying that they will uphold ALL laws, yet they seem to think that it is acceptable to ignore the laws which they don't like. They also don't seem to be able to determine the difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration.
So if Liberals can not accept reality,
isn't that a sign of a mental problem?
Some are using the term "TDS" (Trump Derangement Syndrome), but this is really not accurate since there are many more things that Liberals are not rational about. Examples of this are Democrats such as Biden and Schumer saying that it is unacceptable for a President to nominate a person to the Supreme Court within a year of the election, but when the Republicans do what they said, they get bent out of shape and make up all sorts of claims, but especially forgetting what they had previously said. Gun control is another example in which they have to ignore the facts. Often Liberals have armed security to protect them, so the reality is that they just don't want you to be able to protect yourself. It is very important to a Liberal for people to forget what they previously said when the tables are turned.
Here is a nice Op-Ed about TDS:
Then there is the claim that the liberal media never lies. How do you take someone seriously when they say that the media is always honest?
Another thing that I noticed, which was on another day, is that often when the liberals talk about the steps to make those who are here illegally become legal they typically say that the person needs to pay back taxes. They also say that they only thing that the person has done is to come here illegally, sometimes due to their parents. But if that is true, then why in the world would they need to pay back taxes? They would only need to pay back taxes if they evaded paying taxes by not paying what they owed, which the last I checked is illegal.
Also, with those pushing to make those who qualify under DACA legal, I have a simple question. I could ask why someone who violates the law should be rewarded. I could ask why the the parents who brought them here should not be blamed, afterall if a criminal broke into a house with children, you would still throw them all out. I could ask many more questions, but the question I have is while I feel sorry for those children who were brought here illegally, what are we supposed to do about the 2 year old who is brought here tomorrow? Do we not feel sorry for them? Where does it end? Anyone supporting such things should have a plan to completely deal with it and not just keep rewarding those who violate the law. You can feel sorry for someone, but still not reward them for illegal actions.
There was is also another liberal line which is quite interesting. The are those who are claiming that Russia could have affected the election, but that the FBI could not have affected the election in terms of harming Trump, only Hillary. Amazing how that works.
They want an assault rifle ban. Well, that already occurred in 1934. They don't have a clue as to what a real assault rifle is. It does show that propaganda works though.
They say that they want those who are mentally ill to not be allowed to have a firearm. Well, that is already the case.
They say that those who have committed crimes should not be allowed to have a firearm. Well, that is already the case.
Many of the other things that they say that they want is already the case, but what they don't get is that if the government does not follow the current laws, then the person doesn't become prohibited.
Look at ALL of the failures of government in which the Florida shooter would have become a prohbited person and/or gotten the help that he really needed. Then think about those who want the government to protect us. The government failed in that case, as well as many others.
Then there is an important aspect that people don't understand: The police have NO duty or obligation to protect you as an individual. Yes, that is true. Go do a search regardng court cases and the rulings. The police are to protect society, but not individuals. If you call the police and they don't come and help you, there is NOTHING that you can do. Have you ever called 911 and been told that they have no one to send out? I have and it is then when you realize that you are completely on your own, but the government have limited the law abiding and have helped criminals to commit their crimes with a reduced chance of being harmed by their intended victims. Think long and hard about that.
This issue with school shootings isn't about arming the teachers, it is about the goverment disarming people and preventing them to be able to protect themselves. It is also about gun free zones in which the only people with guns are the criminals. Gun free zones allow criminals to harm far more people before someone can come and stop them.
There is a saying that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Consider what happened during the LA Riots. When people called the police for help, they were told to call when it was over. A prime example of people having to protect themselves and their property are the Korean store owners who sat on the roof with AR-15 rifles to convince the criminals to go elsewhere.
If you search for a definition of what an assault rifle really is you will find some actual definitions, but then you will also find a symptom of the problem with our society:
Definition of assault rifle
: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the
AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that
resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic
Now compare that to this definition:
Assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced
size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between
semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Because they are light and portable yet
still able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern
combat ranges of 1,000-1,600 feet (300-500 metres), assault rifles have
replaced the high-powered bolt-action and semiautomatic rifles of the World War
II era as the standard infantry weapon of modern armies.
How many people will read the first definition and not understand what the problem is? Unfortunately, I think that most people will miss a serious problem with this definition. The first part defines correctly what an assault rifle is, but then there is the "also" part.
Think carefully as to what they are actually saying in the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition. They are saying that something which ONLY resembles another item is ACTUALLY the other item. This definiton means that a Ferrari kit car which resembles a real Ferrari is actually a Ferrari. A vehicle which resembles a race car IS a race car, even if it doesn't have ALL of the required features, such as a roll cage, multi-point harness, fuel cell or anything else. A man dressed as a woman IS a woman. A woman dressed as a man IS a man. A semi-auto rifle which looks like a full-auto rifle IS a full-auto rifle. Change the upper to a .22LR and it looks the same, but because it still resembles the full-auto version, it IS the full-auto version. Make an AirSoft rifle which looks like it, it becomes it.
Where do you draw the line? You need only look to the schools to see where some draw the line and it is in a very strange location. A pobeptart eaten to look like a firearm is treated as a firearm. A small plastic toy soldier with a rifle is treated as a firearm. A photo of a firearm is treated as a firearm. Using a hand to look somewhat like a firearm is a firearm. No longer can we tell the difference between what something looks like and what it really is.
Something which resembles something else doesn't become the object it resembles, it only resembles it. Many of lost the concept of reality.
So there are many who want to ban AR-15s, yet they don't have a clue as to what an AR-15 really is. Ask them what the "AR" stands for and they will be few who can actually tell you. The "AR" actually stands for ArmaLite Rifle, the company who orginally came up with the design. It doesn't stand for "Assault Rifle" or "Automatic Rifle". There are MANY companies who produce rifles based on this design. It is a style, more than a specific model. There are many models which look like it, but are made by a different company, but as shown above because it resembles it, then it becomes it. This means that because ALL rifles resembles it in some way, then ALL rifles should be banned.
Then ask the person who wants to ban an AR style rifle to define it by function which doesn't include other firearms which they don't want to ban and they will not be able to do so because it functions exactly the same as any other semi-auto rifle. Cosmetic features does not change the function, but has been used in the past to try to limit what is being banned. A bayonet lug, which most people never use, is not a reason to ban a firearm. How many times have you heard of a rifle with a bayonet has been used in a crime? I never have.
There are many people who are saying that people need to get out and vote to change things. The reality is that we need people to educate themselves first since an ignorant voter will cause a lot of harm.
Index for Insanity, Inc.
If you want to submit your own article, please read the first article and send email