Discussion with a Derangement Syndrome Victim

After referring a Democrat voter to the Liberal Escape Plan comedy video here's the discussion that transpired between us:

Her: "Thank you for that. But how did you know I'm not for McCain!?!? ;-) It's because I travel and am automatically an intelligent person who understands that knowledge of foreign affairs extends beyond looking over Russia's borders, isn't it!?!?!"

Me: "I travel and probably know more about American and global politics than most Americans. Yet I think that Obama will be the worst disaster your country has ever encountered. Is it okay for me to have a differing opinion than you or am I automatically a moron for not agreeing?"

Her: "Absolutely not! I have a very open mind. But he at least is not evil like McCain."


That's a great conversation ender. The thing is, the last sentence from her was not made tongue-in-cheek.

Charlie Rangell: Misogynist

A Radical Liberal's Sense of Humor

Speculate no further about what constitutes an extreme liberal's sense of humor:

What is one supposed to say to this other than Sicker Than Sick!

If you'd like to see another example of what another radical liberal considers funny then click here.

Eve Ensler - The Heather Mallick of the U.S.

If you'd like to see how deeply PDS has infected some, read this hate-filled diatribe by Eve Ensler. Seems to be reminiscent of her fellow deranged Canadian cousin, Heather Mallick.

Let me respond directly to some of the things she wrote:

I don't like raging at women. I am a Feminist and have spent my life trying to build community, help empower women and stop violence against them. It is hard to write about Sarah Palin. This is why the Sarah Palin choice was all the more insidious and cynical. The people who made this choice count on the goodness and solidarity of Feminists.
You claim to not like raging at women but then go on to spew more venom than even a King Cobra snake (or Queen Cobra if you prefer). You allude to the "goodness and solidarity of Feminists" before illustrating that there is no "goodness" in your hate piece whatsoever. The only solidarity that you & your ilk have is how much vile bile you can spew out at Sarah Palin and by extension any Americans who disagree with your narrow world view.


But everything Sarah Palin believes in and practices is antithetical to Feminism which for me is part of one story -- connected to saving the earth, ending racism, empowering women, giving young girls options, opening our minds, deepening tolerance, and ending violence and war.
You really mean "antithetical to Radical Leftist Feminism" but are too disingenuous to admit it. Sarah Palin is very much a feminist. Furthermore, using your own words, let's look at what you're really saying about Palin: She is trying to destroy the earth, in support of racism, disenfranchising women, giving young girls no options, closing the minds of fellow women, encouraging intolerance, and promoting violence and war.

Do you know the meaning of the phrase, "deep irony"? You're charging a woman who is running for vice-president of the United States of America as disenfranchising women and giving young girls no options? Even one of your gal pals, Judith Warner, has realized how incredibly incorrect your assertion is. Do you even realize, Ms. Ensler, that if you said this about a regular person that you'd be found guilty on multiple counts of libel?!? Indeed, "truth" is a defense, but you're not speaking on the side of truth.


I believe that the McCain/Palin ticket is one of the most dangerous choices of my lifetime, and should this country chose those candidates the fall-out may be so great, the destruction so vast in so many areas that America may never recover.
Such insane rhetoric has just guaranteed McCain-Palin more votes. Many more votes!


Sarah Palin does not much believe in thinking. From what I gather she has tried to ban books from the library, has a tendency to dispense with people who think independently.
No Ms. Ensler, YOU do not believe in independent thinking. She did not try to ban books from the library, no matter how many times you wish to repeat this lie. When it comes to asserting that someone else does not believe in thinking, 3 words come to mind: Pot, Kettle, Black.


Sarah believes in guns. She has her own custom Austrian hunting rifle. She has been known to kill 40 caribou at a clip. She has shot hundreds of wolves from the air.
Do you actually understand that your liberal elitist view that no American should be allowed to go hunting only exists amongst a radical minority in America? Your comment about her shooting wolves from the air is a LIE. The Alaskan Aerial Predator program was enacted to cull the wolf population (and bears in some areas) so as to expand the numbers of moose and caribou. Are you a moose-ist and caribou-ist, Ms Ensler? As for Sarah Palin killing "40 caribou at a clip", can we see the proof please?! Or did this vision of her only occur in your dreams? Ancillary question: Do you eat meat?


Sarah believes in God. That is of course her right, her private right.

But you don't like very much that she believes in God, do you Ms. Ensler? It's pretty scary for you that she does, isn't it?! Quick question: How come Barack Obama's Christian beliefs have never been a source of controversy?


Toward the end of her piece she epouses this great piece of wisdom:

If the Polar Bears don't move you to go and do everything in your power to get Obama elected then consider the chant that filled the hall after Palin spoke at the RNC, "Drill Drill Drill." I think of teeth when I think of drills. I think of rape. I think of destruction. I think of domination. I think of military exercises that force mindless repetition, emptying the brain of analysis, doubt, ambiguity or dissent. I think of pain.
I'm too busy shaking my head to say much. I guess being a former mining engineer makes me a rapist. At least in your tiny, extremely radical left-wing mind.

Sarah Palin vs. Anne-Marie Slaughter

Some interesting facts are coming to light today on NRO's The Corner concerning the way Sarah Palin answered Charlie Gibson's question about The Bush Doctrine:

I think Charles Krauthammer makes a persuasive case that Charlie Gibson's understanding of the Bush Doctrine is wafer thin. I also think Rich is correct to say that Palin's answer demonstrates that she has a lot of material to master over the weeks ahead — and over the years ahead should the McCain/Palin ticket prevail.

But ask yourself: How would a real foreign policy sophisticate have replied to Gibson’s question?

Well, Anne-Marie Slaughter is the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. She was interviewed by Alan Johnson, for a book titled: "Global Politics After 9/11: The Democratiya Interviews."

Here's how the exchange begins:

Johnson: What are the central differences, and what are the elements of continuity, if any exist, between 'the Bush doctrine' and the 'grand strategy of forging a world of liberty under law'?

Slaughter: Tell me what you mean by 'The Bush Doctrine'.

In other words, Dean Slaughter gave the same answer as did Palin.

In case you’re interested, the rest of the exchange – follows:

Johnson: Let's say a fairly aggressive strategy of promoting democracy, a willingness to use military force, and a refusal to be put off from using that force because you haven't been able to put an international alliance in place. Plus the idea that the root cause of the threat is the stagnation – politically, economically and culturally – of an entire region, so the only serious response is to promote political change in that region.

Slaughter: The Bush administration at its best looks long term at a lot of problems – terrorism is the most obvious. The Bush administration sees terrorists as a symptom and thinks their defeat requires social and economic and political change to empower individuals to make the most of their lives. And that's the concept of liberty – the liberty to flourish as human beings. And in that sense the Bush administration is continuing the policy of the Clinton administration, which continued the policy of the Reagan administration, which continued the policy of the Carter administration. You really have to go back to Kissinger before you get a break. A lot of what's happened since Kissinger was in reaction to a purely 'realist' foreign policy. So there is continuity there. We agree that long term democratisation is the best hope of creating a safer international environment for all of us. And yes, that does involve thinking about political change. Similarly, we also think there is great value in liberal democracies being able to bolster one another. So we propose a 'concert of democracies' – which has gotten a lot of heat – the Chinese and some Democrats are equally furious.

Johnson: Well, don't be put off.

Slaughter: Oh, we're not. But we differ from the 'Bush doctrine' on a number of grounds. First, the biggest difference between the neo-cons and John and me concerns the willingness to use military force. We share a lot of ends but we really disagree on means. John and I are far more skeptical of the ability to achieve long term change with what inevitably has to be short term means. Throwing troops at a problem is a short-term solution. Second, John and I are far more humble about how pro-active a role the United States can really play. We see a huge role for a community of liberal democracies to support new democratic forces in different countries, we see a role for economic change, we talk a lot about PAR (popular, accountable, and rights-regarding governments) and we believe that getting accountable government means fighting corruption, making things more transparent, making it clear where the money goes, building courts, ensuring checks and balances. Third, John and I think we are involved in a much more complex and longer term process. The Bush administration thinks 'Gee, we can just set things in motion and they will take it from there.’ In my new book I use this great quote from Jefferson where he says, 'The ball of liberty is now well in motion and will roll around the world.' Well, it's not that simple.

---

Of course, those unhinged Obama supporters who clearly will say anything to make Palin look bad will not be moved an inch by this! Facts DO NOT MATTER to them. Next we'll be hearing that Ms. Slaughter, the Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton is unqualified.

PDS Alert: Randi Rhodes

In the latest episode of Palin Derangement Syndrome, we have liberal media superstar, Randi Rhodes smearing the Republican VP nominee in the strangest of ways: