Liberalism is a Mental Disorder (AKA Politics Suck)

A blog dedicated to holding our politicians accountable to We The People.

Thursday, December 29, 2005

The laughable Josh Narins

After reading this, trust me, you will not need any more proof that Liberalism is TRULY a mental disorder, and this man has it bad.

I first found this guys words on Jens blog where he stated

Ahmadinejad is a good thing. referring to President Ahmadinejad who has called for the "annhilation" of Israel. Fine...he presents himself RIGHT off the bat as an anti-semite with no clue as to implications of an anti-semite being within striking distance of Israel.

So I started to check out his blog and found the lunacy didnt end with just a simple comment on someone elses blog. I found real entertainment when I read Israeli peices of crap who pose as humans have been busy. and Remember, the Christian Zionists aren't protecting Israel, they are using it. And I told many Israelis about that when I was there. Not enough, and no one important, I admit. When the rapture comes the Jews will convert or die, right Bush?

Ok....so I start thinking, DAMN..this guy has lost it, he isnt even fully informed, and his ignorance shines through...so fine, whatever, I take a sip of coffee and continue to peruse.

Where the fun started with the whole Hitler thing is when I read this Taking pause I decided to go ahead and heed his call and responded thusly:

Cool! Lets start with arresting Kennedy, Pelosi, Dean, Ubama, Feinstein, Clinton (hillary), Durbin and Others for Sedition in undermining the war effort.

Great idea man.

Well...he asked!

His response?
Wow, fantastic thinking.

You would have done excellent work in Hitler's Germany.

When people complained about the invasion of Belgium, you could write it off as treason and have them shot.

What thinking!

Get out of here, you simple minded fool.

So, this hyena red diaper doper baby fires the first shot at insults, which, by the way is laughable because anyone who doesnt have anything intelligent to say fires off insults, this seems to be a trend with liberals I notice. Not being one to be deterred by some simple insults, and being a man, not a cry baby, I called him on it

Wait a minute, you are the one calling for the arrest of "every law-breaking government officer in jail. Including the ones reading this (or their boss, or their boss's boss, or their boss's boss's boss, whoever would be appropriate)."

So who has the simple mind here?

By definition .. who I have named are guilty of sedition.

When the libs have no reasonable argument, they name call.

Nice...very nice.

You posted it, you defend it.

It seems to me you hate jews, I do not. Hitler hated Jews, I do not. It seems to me you want a socialist agenda forwarded in America, Hitler was a socialist, I am not.

So .. where are there similarities between me and Hitler?

Spew forth more name calling, go ahead, that is your tactic

Show me where I am wrong..that is all I asked.

So here he comes back with gems of proof such as this

By definition, guilty of sedition?

Hitler a socialist?

Well, here are a couple facts. Both the sedition acts (J Adams and W Wilson) have been undone. Are any of the Democrats you named actually arming or supplying with money or letting terrorists stay over in their house? No? Then they are not providing aide and comfort. They are guilty of no crime.

Ahem, yeah right. This is when he decided to pick up his ball and go home by deleting the following comments I posted:

"As to name calling, you are an idiot."
Is that the best you got?
Calling me an asshat was somewhat humerous.
You state on 2 different blogs that you are liberal, and yet here you are, confused and not really comprehending who you truly are. Sad really.
Lets take a look at what Sedition is, ignoramous (there, now you have an excuse to call me names)
From http://dictionary.reference.com/...2004/12/ 29.html Sedition is defined as:
sedition sih-DISH-un, noun:Conduct or language inciting resistance to or rebellion against lawful authority.
It is also defined as:
seditionn : an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government
So, you tell me, what is that Durbin, Kennedy et all has not done to fit the definition of this heinous crime?
They have thrown useless and baseless charges at a sitting president, they have disrupted the effort in Iraq, they have sought at every turn to undermine anyones effort to responsibly handle this war and they have made treasonous statements against our soldiers, our politicians and our political system.
Or is it ok since they are Democrat?
As ridiculous as it is to compare you to Hitler, so was it ridiculous for you to do the same to me, a thinking person would have recognised that.
Hitler was a socialist, his nazi party was based on socialist ideals, nazisim IS socialism with an army. Socialism by definition is:
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Sounds like your boy Hitler to me.You say you dont hate jews, you hate everyone, well that is good...so how is it that you are anti-racist again?

So, rather than answer the points which he brought up, he decided to delete it. I accidentally posted a partial comment which he responded to

Sounds like your boy Hitler to me.You say you dont hate jews, you hate everyone, well that is good...so how is it that you are anti-racist again?

In what way was Hitler an Aristocratic-Republican?

In no way.

_The_ principle of A-R, according to the Oracle of the American Republic, is moderation.

Was Hitler moderate?

The fundamental method for distributing power in an Aristocratic Republic is elections? Did Hitler not suppress elections?

I don't hate everyone. And I didn't say I did. I pity those who have had religion shoved down their throats. They have been deceived. It is a veil over the minds of much of humanity.

Well, I am anti-racist because I can distinguish between Senator Byrd, who has apologized repeatedly, and in print, about his former associations while scumbag Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama and scumbag Senator Lott of Mississippi never have (Lott once distanced himself from _one_ remark, but never his repeated attendance at racist rallies) do not get any free passes from me.

Sessions was kept off the Federal Bench for all his racist remarks back in the 1980s (promoted by racist-friendly Ronald Reagan, who starred in terribly racist movies (which rewrote history to make racists look better, and anti-racists to look worse)). Racist (and mixed marriage is still illegal in Alabama by their Constitution, and the citizens recently decided to keep it in) citizens of Alabama decided to vote him in to the US Senate.

So he compares racism to politics, which are 2 seperate and distinct things.

I will tell you, what I have done to this man is called baiting so I can have something to show the rest of you just how bad liberalism has become. He defends those who kill, maim, oppress and torture yet villifies those who uphold freedom and democracy.

And he cries about "My blog is read by people from around the world, and I am responsible, to some degree, when they arrive, for what they see.

So what the "World" sees on this martys blog is things like, Israeli peices of crap who pose as humans have been busy. and Meanwhile, Palestine has some of the poorest, most overcrowded people on Earth. American self-respect demands we send more attack helicopters to Israel.

I could go on, but that would be giving more time to this moonbat, which is not my focus on this post. Instead, it is to provide proof that Liberalism is a Mental Disorder and show you that liberals continually re-write history, then cut and run when the going gets anything but smooth, this is their agenda...if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.


Blogger josh narins said...

There are factions in Iran.

There are the "Old Guard" clerics (Khameini), grown rich and fat from control over the oil for the last 25+ years, and the "Reform" clerics (Khatami) who want to do some liberalization within Iran.

Neither of those factions won in the last election in Iran. The faction which won might want to call itself "Originalist," since it believes it is the faction truest to the orignal aims of the Iranian state. It is _not_ led by a Cleric (the first Iranian President who isn't).

People who want freedom do NOT want Old Guard clerics to win. And those people do not get much out of having Khatami's faction win, either.

Having a third faction win means that elections are not rigged in Iran (yes, the GC controls candidates, but the GC also wanted Larijani to win, and they didn't "rig" the outcome to make sure it happened).

It also weakens the other factions, which is good for Israel, good for Iran, and good for the world.

The election of Ahamadinejad was a good thing.

He hasn't, for example, in the slightest bit, changed Iran's nuclear posture.

29 December, 2005 11:56  
Blogger LiberalismIsAMentalDisorder said...

"It also weakens the other factions, which is good for Israel, good for Iran, and good for the world.

The election of Ahamadinejad was a good thing.

He hasn't, for example, in the slightest bit, changed Iran's nuclear posture."

ok Josh, let me make myself PERFECTLY clear on this, Ahamadinejad has said in October, Israel should be "wiped off the map."

So you tell me that he is a good thing for Israel? What are you...insane? The fact they have NOT changed their nuclear posture shows they are CLEARLY working towards a strike on Israel...and do you know what that means oh worldly blogger?

It means that WW3 starts in the heart of the middle east because when Iran launches on Israel, Israel will launch on Iran, The United States will see missles striking across the skies of Iraq and launch an attack in defense of Israel, our allies, on Iran, nuclear powers (Russia, N Korea, China et all) will launch attacks on Allies in defense of Iran and the allies will launch on the rest of the world.

Armageddon huh?

And through it all, 144,000 Israelis will survive, thus ensuring the continuation of Gods chosen people.

Sound far fetched? With radicals in control, its not.

Think things through dude, get your mind out of the sky and try and see some reality.

Am I being too forceful in my comments...yeah, because you cant back off from insults and name calling.

Of course that is your tactic, so be it.

30 December, 2005 07:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Josh said, "He (Ahmadenijad) hasn't changed Iran's Nuclear posture". This is correct. The new president has simply made it more open that Iran is pursuing, and feels they have the right to pursue, nuclear weapons and they don't care what the rest of the world thinks about that.

He is no more or less corrupt than any of the clerics- he's just more blunt about his intentions and doesn't even want to try to play well with others. That is NOT what the people wanted. Ahmadenijad undermines their efforts for freedom.

03 January, 2006 09:19  
Blogger LiberalismIsAMentalDisorder said...

A sugar coated sour grape is still a sour grape inside :)

I think his tactic is to sugar coat everything...let me rephrase that, I think the LIBERAL tactic is to sugar coat everything.

Mary Poppins was right you know :)

03 January, 2006 09:44  
Blogger JSN said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 July, 2008 14:56  
Blogger Rachael Narins said...

Is there a way to email you, privately?
Thank you.

22 September, 2014 17:42  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home