Someone with whom you politically disagree is NOT by definition clinically insane, so stop with the name calling. No, I take that back, just keep it up because it is a perfect example of projective identification. Please explain in rational clinical terms why the average protestor at these rallies is crazy, other than the fact that they disagree with leftist orthodoxy. i mean what delusion do they believe in that can be disproven? As it turns out, Obama is controlled by banksters who are some of his largest contributors. Is it crazy to believe that Obamacare will bankrupt the nation? Based on the experience of Medicare, it's arguably crazy to believe otherwise.

I'm speaking for myself, something I'd recommend if you've never tried it yourself.

I'm not "name-calling" either, but stating a strongly-held OPINION of the idiots marching in these so-called "protests." We know that:

1. They are promoted by Fox News, then covered by that same organization

2. That they are specious, since we have seen few if any tax increases under Obama

3. That extremists are at the rallies, judging by signs such as the one involving Dachau and 'white power' t-shirts at other such events

4. That Republican Congresspeople and Senators are showing up to push a partisan agenda

5. That they want to defeat healthcare reform in America, and will do and say anything to accomplish that goal

"Clinically" was an obvious bit of hyperbole on my part, so I'll just ignore your silly request for "proof" of same.

Get over yourself.

attempting to say that health care reform has some kind of similarity to the holocaust is nuts.

Someone with whom you politically disagree is NOT by definition clinically insane, so stop with the name calling.

True. AND someone who rants about irrational and factually wrong things as though the WERE real.. IS disconnected from realtiy.

Please explain in rational clinical terms why the average protestor at these rallies is crazy

Because not only do they fervently believe things that are not factually true, any attempt to present them with actual factually verifiable arguements agitates them emotionally but does nothing to change their delusions about the verifiable facts.

other than the fact that they disagree with leftist orthodoxy. i mean what delusion do they believe in that can be disproven?

Pretty much every one. ranging from the fact that the Census "deep questionaire" is a precursor to politically based internment, to the "takeover of 1/6th of the economy". to the experience of Medicare to Obama being "controlled by the banksters".

Based on the experience of Medicare, it's arguably crazy to believe otherwise.

Hmm, a program that has dramatically increased the healthcare, quality of life and longevity of the elderly is a failure? Is related to facism and communism how? is proof of "bankster [sic] control how?

Your own statements show you to be on the brink of that sort of irrationality.

"As it turns out, Obama is controlled by banksters who are some of his largest contributors"

But opponents of health care reform in Congress are "free thinkers, acting on principle"....and owe nothing to their health insurance corporation contributors???

Are you suffering from Irony Poor Blood?

Please explain in rational clinical terms why the average protestor at these rallies is crazy

I'd love to, but the DSM-IV doesn't actually give a clinical definition of "crazy".

But if you want my own personal opinion, comparing health care reform to the Holocaust is crazy. Calling Nancy Pelosi BOTH a socialist and a McCarthyite (look up what these words actually mean, please) is crazy*. Accusing Obama being under the control of the Rothchilds, or muslim extremists, or the Trilateral Commission, or banksters, or whatever group is the shadow organization du jour, is crazy. Calling anyone who disagrees with your politics a nazi or comparing them to the soviets is crazy.

But that's just two cents. Take it for what it's worth.

*This is not meant as a defense of Pelosi, just to illustrate that the tea partiers were using two mutually exclusive words to describe her. And I would consider all the above things crazy no matter which side of the political spectrum was doing them.

What if Nancy Pelosi was a socialist VERSION of Joe McCarthy. Would that make sense?

I don't know if she is really a socialist but I might question how many shreds of decency she has, at long last. She doesn't get a lot of love nor respect, even from most democrats.

bsharporflat:

What if Nancy Pelosi was a socialist VERSION of Joe McCarthy. Would that make sense?

I suppose if she spent her time using innuendo and political grandstanding to ruin the careers of many employees in the State Department, that might make sense.

I don't have much love for her either, but McCarthy was a guy who made a career hunting (mostly imaginary) socialists and communists and hounding people out of their jobs. So calling her both a socialist and a McCarthyite makes very little sense based on the accepted definition of the terms. But I haven't seen much evidence that these teapartyers actually know the definition of many of the words on the signs they wave around.

"What if Nancy Pelosi was a socialist VERSION of Joe McCarthy"

You ever see the Manchurian Candidate?

Bentoniani:

"What if Nancy Pelosi was a socialist VERSION of Joe McCarthy"

You ever see the Manchurian Candidate?

Angela Lansbury is a little creepier than Nancy Pelosi. But just a little.

Jobmd - What do you call someone who espouses fearful belief of an immediate threat, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, and a lack of supporting evidence for their claims of danger? You call that person paranoid. Paranoia is a mental illness. "Crazy" is a colloquialism for a mentally ill person. It's not out of line to call the teabaggers and birthers crazy. They are.

Bsharp would also have to demostrate that Pelosi is "socialist" - which itself is an irrational proposition

Hey Kev; It is not irrational to believe that one's health care would be in danger from this plan. Look at what the government has done with the food supply (make the worst food the cheapest with subsidies). Was it irrational for the left to question the dogma of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Why didn't they just believe what they were told? What is borderline crazy is anyone signing a bill, no matter what it is, that is 2000 pages long that they haven't read.

Hey Kev; It is not irrational to believe that one's health care would be in danger from this plan. Look at what the government has done with the food supply (make the worst food the cheapest with subsidies

Um because the equivilency you offer is false. What the government has done in food is exactly what conservatives suggest we should CONTINUE to do with healthcare. IE provide subsidies that the private market then takes and exploits. There is no "public option" much less "single payer" in food.

Was it irrational for the left to question the dogma of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

No- because what we were being told could be demonstrated as false. So far the conservatives HAVE NOT shown an equivilently factually corroboratable criticism.

What is borderline crazy is anyone signing a bill, no matter what it is, that is 2000 pages long that they haven't read.

So is voting against it without reading it. So why didn't the conservative reps stay on top of the content and actually read it rather than sending their staffers to find things they disagree with?