« Open Thread | Main | Small Child Made to Pray for Socialism at Red Ted's Funeral »

Revisionist history is vitally important for modern liberal politics to exist. Without revising history it becomes much more difficult to recruit fellow travelers to their coercive Utopian cause.

Drunk, stupid, brain damaged and in his in his twilight years --- you can let it go.

That he willfully subjected so many children to the insane brutality brought on by forced busing legislation, that he left a young girl to die alone suffocating in the back of a sinking car, that he repeatedly colluded with Soviet officials responsible for mass murder - against Ronald Reagan --- all done while in his prime, should not be let go.

Ted Kennedy's legacy defines liberal fascism.

The sentence in the Thanksgiving edition of my church bulletin intended to say
"Thank you, Lord,Black Classic Tall Ugg Boots for the many miracles we are too blind to see.
"Chestnut Classic Tall Ugg Boots But in what might have been a classic Freudian slip, the sentence read.

Malloy an avowed atheist is now "self-syndicating his radio program. ... Direct listener support is enabled through the sale of Podcast subscriptions via his website." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Malloy
In short, this former Err-America loser can't get any sponsors to pay for air time for his garbage. The death of the swimmer will hopefully mark the nail in the coffin for Obamacare and a disgraceful defeat of the leftists.

Just you typical liberal suck faced liberal cunt blaming others HOW MUCH DID THE KGB HAVE TO DO WITH THE ASSASINATIONS AND WHAT ABOUT THE FIGURE ON THE GRASSY KNOLL?

Come on N Pelosi tell us the C.I.A. did him in, we can't wait for your next outa your mouth into the wind piece of clueless banter, or are you trying to find a way to blame those nasty aging astroturf Right Wing terrorist

Your a terrorists if you belive in the constitution reject the NORTH AMERICAN UNION oppose illegal imagration oppose sex education and evolution in schools and reject OBAMA as our leader

I'm surprised there isn't more attention being paid to the timing of Obamas "vacation" and Kennedys death. What with the healthcare scam on the skids, it wouldn't surprise me if Obama decided Teddy needed to "take one for the team". A one man death panel so to speak.

Take one for the team? Or maybe Obama borrowed one of the guys from the Clinton Arkansas Death Squad - Aka - CADS to generate sympathy to pass the Obamination now likely to be called KennedyCare.

BUT! Oswald or Sirhan doesn't fit their agenda. If it doesn't fit it never happened...Screw reality! It's the liberal way.

Weekend At Teddy's

I sometimes tune in Mike Malloy for a few moments if I am driving in the evening. I think he is the craziest talk show host in the country, absoulutely nuts. He is also one of the most unknown lefies, as noboby listens to him. Unfortunately, by the right reacting to him, it brings him out in the open. As tempting as it is, if you ignore him, he will fade into obliovion all by himself.

I sometimes tune into Mike Malloy for a moment if I am driving in the evening. I think he is the craziest talk show host in the country. Absolutely nuts. But he is also one of the most unknown lefties. Nobody listens to him. As tempting as it is, when the right reacts to him it brings him out in the open. If you leave him alone, he will fade into oblivion all by himself.

As tempting as it is, if you ignore him, he will fade into obliovion all by himself.

But we don't. We want *everybody* to know how deranged and psychotic the left is.

If I could put Goatse, wingnutlicker, and fez on the radio, I would in a heartbeat.

If Malloy considers this to be the beginning of a dark era in this country, we have lots of reason to be cheerful.

I agree - I don't want this nutcase to fade away. I want people to think of Malloy whenever they think of liberalism.

Well V, I suppose you will have to tune into Mike, Jeff Farias, Coffee with Sarge, Stephanie Miller, or Peter Werbe to catch me sometime.

The amazing thing to me is that liberals do not appear the least discomfited by contrary facts. It's as if they think facts don't actually exist if they don't believe in them.

How else could a liberal say something like "the right wing killed the Kennedys" with a straight face? How else could other liberals not gently take him aside for treatment?

I've long thought that liberalism was simply a character defect, but I'm shifting to the view that it is in fact a mental disease.

Liberalism=fantasyland

What a bunch of morons these idiots are.

Jay, you are correct. I think it is a form of dementia.

Ted Kennedy was murdered by God.

Further to my point, liberals seem to treat facts the way children treat something's existence: if they don't acknowledge it, then it doesn't actually exist. It's charming when children think they're hiding by covering their eyes, but liberals do exactly the same thing with regard to facts. Psychosis has a liberal bias.

Well, Jay, why don't you give Mike a call some night. You could learn a few things, and it would a good laugh for liberals across the globe.1-877-99-malloy

Jay,



I think you are correct about liberal mental disorders. And you make a good point: there is a definite liberal slant to psychosis.
You rarely see a psychotic with delusions of conservativism.

There's something just not right about liberal thinking patterns; which BTW goes beyond a low IQ. That's part of what makes liberalism so insidious.
Just an hypothesis, but I think conservative thinking starts young. Its probably first manifest when kids weighing right from wrong, false vs true, good vs bad, experience cognitive dissonance from trying to digest liberal ideas. On the other hand, some kids probably just don't feel that dissonance. We know that there are sociopaths who are not curtailed by feelings of guilt or remorse.

The more we look into just about any kind of behavior, at least for behavioral sets that can be modeled, its becoming apparent that a genetic or hereditary pattern is involved. No surprise there.

The idea that a constitutive mental framework would define an individual's politics is not new. Biased liberal researchers have been trying for a while now, using junk (or at best, soft) science, to identify conservative thinking with some kind of mental illness.

But you've noticed I'm sure, that the more liberals believe something, the more true it becomes for them.
I think eventually we will find a gene(s)or some set of neurons that predisposes emergent cognitive patterns that substitute right hemispheric emotional qualities as dominant over left-hemispheric logical clarity.

Fiberal, I think the liberals' problem arises from muddling together the way things are with the way liberals wish they were. Failing to make a clearcut distinction between the two is unhealthy psychologically.

This is why they persist in pushing socialist nonsense. Even those who admit it's failed dismally everywhere it's been tried, this time they'll get it right, and then they'll usher in a new era of humanity, a paradise on earth.

Once they suppress everyone who isn't enthusiastic about it, of course. They are the reason it isn't working yet. Just round them up, and then you'll see socialism work. Still doesn't work? Must be saboteurs. Round 'em up, ship 'em off to the GULAG, then it'll work...

They fail to make the leap to realizing that the problem is intrinsic: they're ideas have not worked anywhere because...they do not work, and they never will. They refuse to see the elephant in the room. If they cover their eyes, the elephants disappears. Magical thinking at its finest.

Are you really so stupid as to not realize that Palestinians are a far-right-wing society?

Another aspect - also unhealthy - is believing something because it just should be right. Of course all people should have the same outcome; all are equally talented, aren't they? It wouldn't be fair if different people had substantially different prospects in life from birth. Why, it's so...unjust. So unfair.

And yet all grownups know that some people just are more fortunate than others, and that's that. I'm not just talking about scions of wealthy families (e.g., the Kennedys). Look at world class athletes. They're not there simply because they worked harder than others; they're there because they're supremely talented, far more than most people, and also worked hard. Totally unfair. Just like life.

"Are you really so stupid as to not realize that Palestinians are a far-right-wing society?
"Posted by: Anonymous at September 1, 2009 3:55 PM"

Are you really so stupid as to not realize that Palestinians are a EXTREME ISLAMIST society that HATES AMERICA?

If they are "far right", then why did the SOVIET UNION (YOUR role-model) provide weapons for them?

Then again, if they are so "far right" as you claim, why do your LIBERAL leaders love them so?

KHarn, I took that post as satirical, because it was ridiculous. But it's hard to tell satire from things liberals say in all seriousness, so we need a tiebreaker. Serious? Or satire?

Jay,


There's a lot of things about liberals that make no sense until you apply a kind of sociopathic explanation.

But in any event, their tenacious irrationality in the face of all evidence, reality and sound judgment takes more explanation than I'm capable of.

Tiebreak: Since the Palestinians are neither far-right-wing by any Arab definition, nor a true society by any civilized definition, this must be a satire.

Posted by: Fiberal at September 1, 2009 5:21 PM

Or just plain stupidity.

We teach scientists to generate a hypothesis(basically, model) for how something works, use the hypothesis to predict what will happen in a given circumstance (i.e., the result of an experiment). If the hypothesis predicted that result, then the hypothesis is said to be consistent with the data. (Note: that doesn't mean it validates a given hypothesis; other hypotheses might have made the same prediction. Hypotheses can therefore only be invalidated, never validated.)

A hypothesis contradicted by experimental results must be either modified or rejected.

From this perspective, the left's continuing belief in socialism defies comprehension. We now have reams of data contradicting the left's core hypothesis (that self-interest is learned, not innate). Yet they persist in clinging to their hypothesis, even though it does not predict human social behavior with any accuracy.

Amazing, and totally, hopelessly irrational. As all research directors are fond of saying, doing the same experiment twice and expecting a different outcome is the height of irrationality.