Skip to main content

Missouri State Senator Brian Nieves wonders if liberalism is a mental disorder

Missouri Republican State Senator and man voted least crazy person to have threatened to kill a political rival's aide - Brian Nieves - reportedly wrote the following yesterday:

"Barry... I honestly wonder, and I'm being sincere about this, if liberalism is indeed a mental disorder. A person commits a heinous crime, the kind we hear about in the news, and they are not allowed to be executed but an innocent baby who is wrapped in the comfort of his/her mother's womb - Having been created by God - can be literally ripped apart, viciously murdered, and this 'Man of God' supports it?!?!?!?! WOW!!"

Wow, indeed. First off, the 48-year old State Senator may want to take a sex ed class in the near future. I know when he was extremely young, his parents may have told him that babies were created by God, but what near 50-year old doesn't seem to realize yet is that he wasn't created by God. He was created by his father penetrating his mother with his dingaling while listening to Marvin Gaye.

Secondly, Mr. Nieves contends that a person who is pro-choice, but anti-death penalty possesses a mental disorder? There are nuances to both controversial events. Just because a person is against capital punishment, but supportive of women's reproductive rights doesn't mean he or she has a mental disorder. While we can all disagree on when an embryo truly becomes a living, breathing human being, the fact of the matter is, until that baby is born, he or she won't be counted in the census, won't be provided healthcare, etc. We won't truly know if the baby will be alive until it's actually born and the doctors confirm everything is in working order. People on death row, meanwhile, have officially been declared living, breathing humans (or monsters). There have been many such individuals whom have been released from death row after evidence is presented which shows them to be innocent. We don't receive such information about some until after their execution date. It's also less costly to keep such individuals in prison without parole than to follow through with the very lengthy process of an execution. Lastly, there are times women have an abortion due to being the victim of the "heinous crime" of rape. Like I said, both issues are much more complex than Mr. Nieves lets on, and just because a person may appear to be showcasing contradictory beliefs on the surface regarding the two issues, that doesn't necessarily make it so when delving further into matters.

When it comes to mental disorders and contradicting words from the Bible, modern-day Republicans may want to face their own reflections before criticizing people of different political persuasions. Using Senator Nieves' choice words of "man of God," here are some phrases I believe he and his ilk would say without hesitation, but would likely receive some confused looks directly after the said remarks:

- "I'm a man of God and I don't believe everyone should have their own healthcare!"

- "I'm a man of God and I believe guns should have more rights than people!"

- "I'm a man of God and I believe we should love and accept everyone, except for the gays!"

- "I'm a man of God and I believe we should love, treasure, cherish, and protect all of our children's rights and their well-being until they are born, but not after!"

- "I'm a man of God and I don't believe we should take care of poor people, or the elderly, or the homeless, or minorities, or gay people, or women."

- "I'm a man of God and I have no idea what all God intended with what's written in the Bible, but I'm going to continue interpreting it to my own liking to further my own political agenda and to make myself feel better, because I want to believe God is a sexist, racist, homophobic white man who cares only about the most wealthy among us, just like I do."

You were saying about mental disorders, Mr. Nieves?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/22/brian-nieves-missouri-liberalism_n_3635554.html

http://www.emissourian.com/news/breaking_news/article_78528e2a-bd0b-11df-a55b-001cc4c002e0.html/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"