Advertisement
Bringing people together in love and faith
My Blog
Blogs > Tropical_Man > Mercy
Mercy
  
Hope

Exploring Psychology and Meds

Apologetics

The Rest of the Gospel

Names of International scammers
Title View |
David Mamet comes to his senses Mar 28, 2008 1:51 am
94 Views
Famed playwright (Sexual Perversity in Chicago, Glengarry Glen Ross, Speed-the-Plow, Oleanna) and screenwriter (The Verdict, House of Games, The Verdict) David Mamet writes in the Village Voice that he is now an "ex-Liberal."

I took the liberal view for many decades, but I believe I have changed my mind.

As a child of the '60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart.

These cherished precepts had, over the years, become ingrained as increasingly impracticable prejudices. Why do I say impracticable? Because although I still held these beliefs, I no longer applied them in my life. . . .

I wondered, how could I have spent decades thinking that I thought everything was always wrong at the same time that I thought I thought that people were basically good at heart? Which was it? I began to question what I actually thought and found that I do not think that people are basically good at heart; indeed, that view of human nature has both prompted and informed my writing for the last 40 years. I think that people, in circumstances of stress, can behave like swine, and that this, indeed, is not only a fit subject, but the only subject, of drama.

I'd observed that lust, greed, envy, sloth, and their pals are giving the world a good run for its money, but that nonetheless, people in general seem to get from day to day; and that we in the United States get from day to day under rather wonderful and privileged circumstances—that we are not and never have been the villains that some of the world and some of our citizens make us out to be, but that we are a confection of normal (greedy, lustful, duplicitous, corrupt, inspired—in short, human) individuals living under a spectacularly effective compact called the Constitution, and lucky to get it. . . .

I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher) but Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson, and Shelby Steele, and a host of conservative writers, and found that I agreed with them: a free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism.

0 Comments
Dennis Miller on "Redacted" Mar 28, 2008 1:29 am
99 Views
Dennis Miller tears Mark Cuban apart for financing and distributing the troop-smearing Brian De Palma film, Redacted. He also makes a great point about Hollywood’s loyalty. It isn’t to outsider moneybags like Cuban: Hollywood is only loyal to their money, and only as long as it’s useful to be loyal to that.

“Mark Cuban is in too deep now. They’re gonna lay the First Amendment on him if he tries to roll this back, if he tries to redact Redacted. And the fact is, he has enough zeros after his name that these guys are gonna befriend him like Mr. Drysdale throwing a dinner party for Jed Clampett. But when it serves their purposes they’re gonna throw him under the wheels and I hope he gets ready for that. De Palma will turn on him in a second.”

Redacted is scoring terribly on Rotten Tomatoes and is losing money faster than a Kennedy in a strip joint. If nothing else gets Cuban’s attention, maybe that last fact will.
If Mark Cuban really is interested in depicting the war in Iraq fairly, he ought to finance a film about the al Qaeda slaughterhouses that US troops found and documented during the battle of Fallujah. Those have been redacted from the mainstream press for years.
0 Comments
Moral Relativism Mar 28, 2008 1:15 am
97 Views
by Sean

The Decline of the Liberal Left
Moral Relativism, also known as Situational Ethics, is what has caused the decline of the Liberal Left. It began with the with the idea that "Nothing is always right or always wrong." Ironically, this is an idea that they feel is always right. It is, however, an idea that is easily proved wrong. For example, it's always wrong to oppress people, or to commit genocide.

Moral Relativity has been combined with several other ideas to create what we think of as the modern liberal. Here is the way it went:

In the nineteen-sixties the idea that we should tolerate each others differences (at that time primarily racial differences) was pushed hard in schools and the media. This was, and is, a noble idea. It was referred to as "Racial Tolerance."

Racial Tolerance gradually became simply "Tolerance," and began to include under it's umbrella tolerance for other cultures, nationalities, religions and forms of sexuality. Still a laudable concept. Our Declaration of Independence begins with it, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

The idea of "Tolerance" began to meld with the idea that "Nothing is always right or always wrong" and became "Nothing of ours is better than something of theirs" and then more recently mutated into "Nothing of ours is ever as good as anything of theirs."

This can be seen today in the fact that the Left is only upset by the use of force when it is the U.S. using force. In the fact that, if the U.S. has a vested interest in the use of force, it is unacceptable to the Left, but if there is no benefit to the U.S. at all the use of force is mandatory. Take, for example the difference in the Left's resistance to the use military force in Iraq (How dare you?) and their desire for the use of force in Liberia (How dare you not?). In Iraq we have many vested interests, in Liberia none.

It can also be seen in the drive to multi-nationalism and the desire to subjugate the will of the U.S. to the will of the United Nations. They believe that only other nations could be fair and impartial enough to decide whether the U.S. is threatened enough to require the use of force to protect itself. They believe that only other nations could be fair and impartial enough to try Saddam Hussein for his crimes against the Iraqis. The U.S. is, in their eyes, incapable of the exercise of power or judgment in any way other than bullying self-interest.

It can be seen in the Left's approach to Abortion. Does this sound familiar: "I don't believe in it myself, I think it's horrible, but who am I to tell other people what to think?" They can't see that there is an absolute involved; that Killing is bad, and should only be done to protect yourself and others from people who will not be dissuaded in any other way.

They also believe that the Government is better suited to taking care of us than we are ourselves. In this case the Government is the "other" who's "everything" is better than our own.

Our culture is not as good as Europe's, our leaders are not as smart as the United Nations, our medical system is not as good as Canada's. Our fill-in-the-blank is not as good as their fill-in-the-blank. In an all-out war they believe that the enemy has a greater right to defend themselves than we do.

What it comes down to is that they don't believe our culture/country/lives are worth fighting for because they aren't worth a darn. Because nothing of ours is ever as good as anything of theirs.

It is mental madness.Watch out for the dangerous mental incapabilities of the morally corrupt Liberal mindset.
0 Comments
It starts at Childhood Mar 28, 2008 1:08 am
99 Views
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says.

"When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
0 Comments
What do you call a person that.... Mar 28, 2008 1:02 am
171 Views
What do you call a person that says they do not like you or your thoughts, yet constantly quotes a person (Barry Obama) who is a racist and hates their country. Yet this person can not stay away from your blog, when you do not even visit theirs?
Mentally Unstable
Stalker
Obsessive, Compulsive
Secret Crush (yuk)
Closet Conservative that wants to be saved from the mental illness of Liberalism
5 Comments, 2 votes
Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts Mar 28, 2008 12:55 am
114 Views
2008 WorldNetDaily



WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."

For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."
2 Comments
Winston Churchill quotes Mar 27, 2008 4:41 pm
111 Views
We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.



There is no such thing as a good tax.

Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile—hoping it will eat him last.

The problems of victory are more agreeable than the problems of defeat, but they are no less difficult.

From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I shall not put.

You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.

If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law.

The whole history of the world is summed up in the fact that, when nations are strong, they are not always just, and when they wish to be just, they are no longer strong.

0 Comments
Smart Responce to a Walking (barely) person Mar 27, 2008 7:48 am
278 Views
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Delusional does not mean you can not push buttons. Yes he is delusional.Yes real facts are not important.

The real facts destroy his stories.

Thats understandable... its just how Liberals are.

a sad lot they are
10 Comments
Indoctrinate University Mar 27, 2008 7:08 am
120 Views
GLENN BECK PROGRAM
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

GLENN: I've told you for a while I don't believe that any society has ever gotten more tolerant. They just change targets. I read that quote, what, about two months ago? And I think it is the best quote I've heard in I don't know how long. No society has ever gotten more tolerant. They just change targets.

Well, I've got two stories for you. One is from the conservatives down at the University of Florida, and I have the poster or the little flier they handed out. It just says radical Islam wants you dead. Obsession, movie. Radical Islam's war against the West. Screening at UF on Tuesday, November 13th at the Union movie theater, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, sponsored by the college law school Republicans, and the Jewish law school association. For more information e-mail obsessionUF at gmail, okay? That's all it says. Well, the university went crazy because Muslims said they were afraid to be on campus because of this. This was creating a hostile environment for the Muslims on campus. Well, it shouldn't. You should be able to unite against radical Islam, but we have live in such a politically correct world that you can't say that. You can't say, hang on, which are the radical Islamists here? Which are the ones that want me dead and which are the ones that want to live side by side as a good neighbor. I'd like to know that, but we can't ask that question. We can't discuss it, which leaves us into a place to where you don't know how. That should cause fear and it should cause fear in the Muslim community as well as the non-Muslim community because I got news for you. If you're not Muslim enough, you're a target. In today's America if you're not Christian enough, you're a target. Let's stop with this stuff.

Well, the university issued a letter and demanded an apology from this student group. Well, now things have changed just a bit and one of the guys who helped make this change is on the phone with us. He is from the house of representatives. His name is Adam Hasner. He is down in Florida.
2 Comments
Saddam's Salesmen Mar 27, 2008 6:46 am
134 Views
by Ben Johnson
Frontpagemag

Thursday, March 27, 2008

“If being used means that we’re highlighting the suffering of Iraqi children, or any children, then yes, we don’t mind being used.” – Rep. James McDermott, D-WA, on his 2002 trip to Iraq, financed by Saddam Hussein.
We’ve long contended the terrorists could not buy better representation than the Democratic Left gives them for free. We never knew how right we were.

The media revealed last night that Saddam Hussein personally funded the trip of three Democratic Congressmen to Iraq on the eve of the war that led to his ouster. Saddam’s Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) reportedly bribed an American Muslim activist with two million barrels of oil to arrange the fall 2002 trip for left-wing Congressmen Jim McDermott, D-WA; David Bonior, D-MI; and Mike Thompson, D-CA.

David Horowitz and I thoroughly chronicled the event in our new book, Party of Defeat. On September 29, 2002, the ignominious trio appeared on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, via satellite hookup from foreign soil, to extol the truthfulness of Saddam Hussein, decry the already weakened sanctions imposed by the United Nations, and call President Bush a liar bent on war. David Bonior – who long served as House Democratic Whip, the second-highest ranking post in the House of Representatives – laid the blame squarely on the United States of America. Bonior denounced the regimen of multilateral sanctions, already weakened by the Oil for Food program, as “barbaric” and “horrific.” He backed this up with anecdotal evidence gleaned from the group’s well-supervised tour of Iraqi hospitals. Worse, the U.S. had been “trying to push and dictate” Iraq, namely by requiring its dictator verify his compliance with the cease-fire that ended the first Gulf War and the 17 UN resolutions he was currently defying. Although Saddam Hussein had frustrated all previous weapons inspections, Bonior blithely announced that he would now allow inspectors the “unrestricted” autonomy “to look anywhere.” (Of course, the inspectors’ job was not to play hide-and-seek with Iraq’s prewar WMD cache; it was to verify that he had destroyed all WMDs, as he had agreed to do as a precondition of peace in 1991.) Rep. James McDermott echoed that none of the arms imbroglio was the Iraqi regime’s fault, anyway, as “Iraq did not drive the inspectors out; we took them out.” Again, the United States was blaming the victim and punishing innocent children for her own misdeeds. When pressed about believing the promises of a murderous international pariah, McDermott said, “I think you have to take the Iraqis at their face value,” but he offered no such quarter to the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. “I think the president would mislead the American people,” he declared.

On the eve of the war, three sitting U.S. Congressmen treated Saddam Hussein as President Bush’s moral superior.

The Iraqi media multiplied the propaganda value of their visit. The Iraq Satellite Channel reported that the three were scheduled to “visit hospitals to see the suffering caused by the unjust embargo.” Yet the three expressed no regrets for acting as Saddam’s stooges. Jim McDermott told CNN’s Jane Arraf, “If being used means that we’re highlighting the suffering of Iraqi children, or any children, then yes, we don’t mind being used.”
3 Comments
1 2 3 4 5 ... 100 ... 115 116 117 118 119 ... 130 ... 140 ... 157 158 159

To link to this blog (Tropical_Man) use [blog Tropical_Man] in your messages.
52 M
Guidelines
November 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
5
2
3
3
  		4
4
5
5
6
8
7
6
8
3
9
6
10
5
11
8
12
2
13
2
14
  		15
 
16
  		17
1
18
2
19
6
20
12
21
3
22
 
23
  		24
  		25
  		26
  		27
  		28
  		29
 
30
  		           

Recent Visitors
VisitorAgeSexDate
Merlinhawk 36M11/21
Louisiana41F11/21
DannyRay66 42M11/21
hmcsb42M11/21
1god2 48F11/20
luvslighhouses22 50F11/20
kiadan 33F11/19
deric16946M11/19
christianfemale26F11/19
BelovedByHim 46F11/19
Most Recent Comments by Others
PostPosterPost Date
Why Creflo Dollar Needs His DollarsMerlinhawkNov 21 7:43 am
Do not lose hopeVerybusybeeNov 21 6:35 am
Barack Loves Jesus AgainTropical_ManNov 21 4:24 am
strange but true.... job interview behaviorTropical_ManNov 20 1:55 pm
thank You LordMerlinhawkNov 20 4:41 am
a heads upTropical_ManNov 19 7:04 pm
I really need your PrayersTropical_ManNov 19 4:37 pm
would you live your life "Next"?Tropical_ManNov 19 3:58 pm
Went and saw "Dark Knight" again!Tropical_ManNov 19 3:55 pm
Here is an example of misleading people on Gas PricesTropical_ManNov 19 3:54 pm
Obama's Fictitious Pro-Israel TeamTropical_ManNov 19 3:20 am