Are Obots really deranged?

In my MVS post I said that the use of Clinton Derangement Syndrome (CDS) and Palin Derangement Syndrome (PDS) by the Obama campaign was the reason I was going to hold my nose and vote for McPalin.  “Derangement” is the state of being deranged, and “deranged” is a synonym for insane.

After I wrote my original post I was struck by a thought: Are Obama supporters really deranged?  I see two possible answers:

1. The people exhibiting CDS/PDS are conciously lying and are intentionally perpetrating fraud in order to help Obama win


2. The people exhibiting CDS/PDS really believe what they say and are not guilty by reason of insanity.

Let’s start with the latter possibility.  The standard for the insanity defense was first set forth in the M’naghten Rules:

The House Of Lords, having deliberated, delivered the following exposition of the Rules:

“the jurors ought to be told in all cases that every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong”

As my Criminal Law instructor explained it, if the statue in front of the library tells you to commit murder and you do, you may be crazy but you are legally sane because you still knew what you did was wrong.  But if it was God that told you to commit the murder then you would be legally insane because you couldn’t tell right from wrong.  That is why a true insanity defense (as opposed to “diminished capacity”) is difficult to establish.

In order for the crazed chihuahuas of Obamanation to be considered not responsible for their words and actions during this campaign, they would have to have believed that everything they said about Hillary and Sarah was absolutely true.  They would also have to believe that every story, rumor and allegation was material and relevant to the qualifications of the two women candidates.

On the other hand, if they knew what they were saying was false, or doubted it was true, or simply did not care whether it was true or not, then they are not insane, they are merely corrupt liars with no principles or decency.  I tend to believe that they are not insane.

Now to be fair, some of them may indeed by completely detached from reality.  Andrew Sullivan comes to mind as someone who no longer seems to know right from wrong.  But I cannot read minds so I don’t know what he (or any other unhinged hater) really believes.  One key indicator is what is known as “conciousness of guilt.”  Any attempt to conceal the crime or lie about it indicates that the person is aware that they have done wrong, and if they know they have done wrong they are not insane.

The same thing would be true of rationalization.  Let’s say that last March someone was piously intoning that a candidate’s religious beliefs, the doctrine of their church and/or the sermons of their pastor were completely irrelevant.  But come September that same person was explaining why those same issues were relevant and material to Sarah Palin’s qualifications and gave specious explanations why the latter was different from the former.  Those rationalizations would tend to indicate that the person was full of shit. 

The same thing would be true if a self-professed feminist decried the sexist treatment of Hillary but approved of or even engaged in sexist attacks on Sarah Palin.  The rationalizations Obama supporters give are intended to justify sacrifcing what they know is right to get what they want right now.  Principles are useless if we discard them whenever they conflict with our desires.  Where there is no temptation there is no virtue.

What’s the point of having principles if we don’t use them?  Why bother fighting for principles if we don’t follow them?  To paraphrase a saying about waging war for peace, lying and cheating in the name of moral principles is like fucking for virginity.

That’s insane.


11 Responses to Are Obots really deranged?

  1. kenoshaMarge says:

    I believe that people who can toss aside ethics and honesty so easily didn’t have much of a hold on either to begin with. To throw them away for any pontificating politician is, IMHO, stupid. Not crazy, not insane, just stupid.

    Once lost veracity and integrity are are lost it is damned hard, if not impossible to ever regain. But then people who are that stupid probably don’t care.

  2. circlejerksnevahstop! says:

    I made a squishy poopie in my big boy panties!

  3. samanthasmom says:

    My brother is in the “news business”. He’s a sportswriter so he’s not involved in writing about politics, but he shares the newsroom with people who do. We were discussing if the MSM could ever get its credibility back. (He’s not as sure as I am that they’ve lost it. He agrees that they are not telling us the truth, but “credible” means “being believed” in his mind, and people still believe them.) I put names to him like Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley – people who used to report the news to us when we were kids. He asked me what about Tom Brokaw? I said he probably comes closest. In any event, my brother insists that we are to blame because we give our viewing time and the high ratings to the sensational and not the pedestrian coverage. He pointed out how many people watch Jon Stewart and call it watching the news. That we have have made Keith Olbermann into the kind of “news person” he is because we watch him and he gets good ratings. My bro’s suggestion is to turn off the TV, cancel my subscription to any magazines or newspapers that have pitched CDS and PDS, etc., refrain from clicking on any websites where these things were pitched, and that when the revenues at these places goes down, the quality of the news reporting should go up – unless of course, lack of revenue puts them all under. I’m not ready to put myself into a total news blackout, though, and that’s pretty much where I’d be.

  4. native1 says:

    ” What’s the point of having principles if we don’t use them?”


  5. Pat Johnson says:

    samanthasmom: I did exactly what your august brother suggested. Otherwise, I would have gone stark raving mad. The credibility has been lost and they are going to have a difficult time wooing us back.

    But in answer to myiq: they are insane for all intents and purposes. They are upholding and defending a candidate who is only interested in his own self aggrandizement. After the election, they will sharing whatever space is still available under the bus with the rest of us.

  6. […] putting together a strip featuring ‘myiq2xu’, one of the proud PUMA clownbloggers. He enjoys altering dissenting commentary. As it quickly became obvious that the PUMA’s were just a handful of irrelevant loudmouthed […]

  7. myiq2xu says:

    PUMA has ONE clownblogger and I are it.

  8. parentofed says:

    Someone thought religion irrelevant in March and important now? That describes a large % of my [ex] Dem friends. They were so blase back then, dripping indifference.

    Funny that none of them now realize that it is Obama, not Sarah, that wants to expand faith-based initiatives, and I find that creepier than your clown face here.

  9. Obots are such sad creatures and who is going to pay for all that therapy they need when their “God-King, Wonder -councelor, Prince of Peace” loses?

  10. myiq2xu says:


    We should open a Kool-aid detox clinic. We’ll make a fortune!

  11. scrubs57 says:

    myiq – agree with this point: basically they are full of shit.

%d bloggers like this: