Rachel Dolezal
 

Now you talk about liberalism being a mental disorder, here's another example. Well, I feeeeel black so I must be even though my parents are white. Prior to that well I feeeeel like a woman so I must be. I think today I feel like a pilot so let me go fly American airlines. When does it stop? Where do we draw the line?

I drew the line at your post actually having any serious merit with that misguided statement.

Ms. Dolezal certainly is a passionate woman for her cause. She was not doing the NCAAP any favors with all this negative personal publicity.

If the parents had not "blown the whistle", who had her deception harmed? No one. If a person wants to identify as a member of the opposite sex, it harms no one.

Where do you draw a line? When it may harm others would be my answer.

Exactly right. We can all think of plenty of conservatives, as well, who have done strange things and are mentally ill.

Who can remember Wilbur Mills taking a midnight skinny dip in Washington DC's Tidal Basin with a stripper named Fannie Fox?

Let's be clear. What you are saying is EXACTLY what Mr,
. Sharpton is trying to sell.

Her parents DID NOT BLOW THE WHISTLE. They have remained silent until the media came to them and asked a question, which they answered honestly.

Keep facts straight

Perhaps her mental dysfunctions are a result of her upbringing, perhaps not. Here is what is known about her childhood. She was raised by extremist parents of the Christian variety. Her parents adopted multiple children in adherence with their cults beliefs and apparently beat the children, again in adherence with their cults beliefs.

If you were lucky enough to escape such insanity you might seek a completely new identity as well. She is clearly a disturbed person but it sounds like she came from a very disturbed family.
Here is a story outlining the background. Some of the information is verified, much is not.
Rachel Dolezal was raised by strict fundamentalists: The revelation sheds light on her story.

Passionate or a Liar? Big difference

No you simply responded with a mocking comment because you can't reply in any other way to the OPs most reasonable set of questions.

In case you haven't noticed it, Rachel is a genuine screwball ... probably borderline insane in a clinical sense. Try reposting something that actually makes sense please.

There's a difference between insanity / denial of reality and being a dirty old man who likes to get naked with strippers.

Rachel Dolezal is the perfect example of a liberal culture gone out of control. It shows a willful detachment from objective reality. The sane becomes insane, and vice versa. Many of the replies so far are attempts to ignore that obvious … i.e. this woman has major issues. Whether she got them from her fundamentalist upbringing, or indoctrination in school (i.e. liberalism) or she saw a financial benefit in being a “minority” is open to question.

But, the laughable tendency from several prior posters to justify it, or imply “no problem” or “if she feels better doing this etc who is to question it” are simply more compelling examples of why liberalism is indeed a genuine mental disorder. It used to be funny, but it’s morphing into an alarming trend … insanity defined as normal.

But, what is clear is this … Rachel is a disturbed, abnormal woman and she’s missing more than a few marbles upstairs.

Who talks about liberalism being a mental disorder? You and Michael Savage? Time to pick up another book..

Attachment 52468

If you think males who feel female, whites who feel black, men who feel like boys, kids who feel like becoming terrorists is the "new acceptable norm" no wonder this country is heading for disaster. That "anything goes mentality" is sure to destroy our country but hey if it feels good, just do it. By the way, Savage's new book "stop the coming civil war" is an excellent read and proud to say a NY times bestseller

I don't think it matters who initially coined the term ... if one simply looks objectively at the evidence out there (Rachel Dolezal being the latest example) the notion that there is a correlation of sorts between liberalism and a mental disorder becomes persuasive.

You dismiss it simply because of one proponent, but the question is do you seriously dispute the conclusion? On what basis? Do you think reality per se should be objective or subjective?

I like your Socratic attempt at questioning. Futile, but commendable.

I noticed you can't answer the question.