Over the past week, we’ve read a lot of stories about how distraught and depressed liberals and Democrats are over having lost the election. We’ve had as much fun as anyone with this stuff, but it’s worth also thinking seriously about it. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that there is really something wrong with these people. Here’s a report from yesterday’s Boca Raton (Fla.) News:
More than a dozen traumatized John Kerry supporters have sought and received therapy from a licensed Florida psychologist since their candidate lost to President Bush, the Boca Raton News learned Monday.
Boca Raton trauma specialist Douglas Schooler said he has treated 15 clients and friends with “intense hypnotherapy” since the Democratic nominee conceded last Wednesday.
“I had one friend tell me he’s never been so depressed and angry in his life,” Schooler said. “I observed patients threatening to leave the country or staring listlessly into space. They were emotionally paralyzed, shocked and devastated.”
Here’s today’s follow-up:
More shocked John Kerry supporters on Wednesday sought psychological help with “post-election selection trauma” in South Florida, prompting the American Health Association to officially release symptoms of the disorder and open its doors for free counseling.
I didn’t bother to read the article since its obviously shit.
However, if liberalism is a sickness, it’s not a fatal sickness. Many Canadians supported Kerry, and Canada is generally more “liberal” or further to the left:
Canada life expectancy:
total population: 79.96 years
male: 76.59 years
female: 83.5 years
U.S. life expectancy:
total population: 77.43 years
male: 74.63 years
female: 80.36 years
Source: CIA World Factbook 2004
The Democratic party is a bit right of what most people call liberalism anyway… it just looks liberal in comparison to certain neoconservative reactionaries. So the title should instead be, “Is slightly less virulent conservatism a sickness?”
later
[quote]legz713 wrote:
I didn’t bother to read the article since its obviously shit.
However, if liberalism is a sickness, it’s not a fatal sickness. Many Canadians supported Kerry, and Canada is generally more “liberal” or further to the left:
Canada life expectancy:
total population: 79.96 years
male: 76.59 years
female: 83.5 years
U.S. life expectancy:
total population: 77.43 years
male: 74.63 years
female: 80.36 years
Source: CIA World Factbook 2004
The Democratic party is a bit right of what most people call liberalism anyway… it just looks liberal in comparison to certain neoconservative reactionaries. So the title should instead be, “Is slightly less virulent conservatism a sickness?”
later
[/quote]
Well gald you could make a conclusion about an article without reading it. Do you also practice the same procedure regarding the training articles on this great site? Let me give you a little clue sometimes the title of an article, or even a book, can be misleading and you actually have to read the piece to understand it.
(just what we need on this forum another knee jerk Canadain liberal…vroom is this a friend you have recruited? LOL
I knew you would make that statement and instead of doing the old, well you pointed me out pointing someone else out pointing someone out thing. Just know that by the nature of criticism, one cannot give it without being subject to it themselves.
Well gald you could make a conclusion about an article without reading it. Do you also practice the same procedure regarding the training articles on this great site? Let me give you a little clue sometimes the title of an article, or even a book, can be misleading and you actually have to read the piece to understand it.
(just what we need on this forum another knee jerk Canadain liberal…vroom is this a friend you have recruited? LOL
[/quote]
Hi Zeb,
You’ll have to forgive my introductory line, naturally I read the part(?) of the article posted in this thread.
Like my opening line, his or her title of “liberalism is a sickness” is really just a catch phrase to lure us in. However, I take issue with the title on two fronts, one as noted above, is the framing of Kerry supporters as “liberals”.
The other issue is the hypocrisy (since we’re on the topic) of using an inflammatory title capitalizing on the supposed divide along party lines in American society (as described by various media pundits) and then reporting pyschological illness apparently caused by adverse reactions to the Bush victory. Talk about rubbing salt into wounds…
So, I decided to post my opinion of the opinion piece.
I’m not sure if that makes me a knee-jerk Canadian liberal, although I’ll freely admit to the latter two labels. Am I supposed to respond in kind with some labels of my own? Please advise.
Legz
