PDA

View Full Version : Liberals clinically mad, concludes top shrink



stephanie
12-04-2008, 08:38 AM
:eek::thumb:

Posted: November 12, 2008
6:33 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."
While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."

For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do.

read the rest..
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494

namvet
12-04-2008, 10:06 AM
http://www.worth1000.com/entries/194500/194504msUQ_w.jpg

wonder how they came to that conclusion???? :coffee:

Noir
12-04-2008, 10:16 AM
This topic is clinicly pointless, concludes me.

stephanie
12-04-2008, 10:17 AM
This topic is clinicly pointless, concludes me.

tough..

now that I think about it, you fit in the mold..:coffee:

April15
12-04-2008, 02:57 PM
If I was clinically insane I would not be a liberal thats for sure! To much responsibility. I would want to be associated with the party of no responsibility, Republican or conservative. No new ideas to stand behind just stay the course. For the insane that is much easier than being able to understand changes in the world and to make modifications to ideas that reflect those changes.
Thank goodness I'm not nuts!

hjmick
12-04-2008, 03:12 PM
If I was clinically insane I would not be a liberal thats for sure! To much responsibility. I would want to be associated with the party of no responsibility, Republican or conservative. No new ideas to stand behind just stay the course. For the insane that is much easier than being able to understand changes in the world and to make modifications to ideas that reflect those changes.
Thank goodness I'm not nuts!

What do you know? You're a loon! :slap:

Remember, crazy people always deny their insanity... :D

avatar4321
12-04-2008, 03:58 PM
If I was clinically insane I would not be a liberal thats for sure! To much responsibility. I would want to be associated with the party of no responsibility, Republican or conservative. No new ideas to stand behind just stay the course. For the insane that is much easier than being able to understand changes in the world and to make modifications to ideas that reflect those changes.
Thank goodness I'm not nuts!

Um you are associated with the party of no responsibility.

Looks like he fits the remarks perfectly.

Little-Acorn
12-04-2008, 03:59 PM
To [sic] much responsibility. I would want to be associated with the party of no responsibility. No new ideas to stand behind just stay the course. For the insane that is much easier than being able to understand changes in the world and to make modifications to ideas that reflect those changes.
How true. But aren't you being a little harsh on your new President-elect, implying that he's insane? Along with those who believed his promises, but are now finding out that his Iraq policies won't differ significantly from George Bush's... and are forgiving him for it?

Did somebody mention a "party of no responsibility"?



from "Best of the Web Today"
http://opinionjournal.com

'Muted by Reality'
Now that Obama has won, we could be in Iraq for a hundred years.
By JAMES TARANTO

Barack Obama was elected president a month ago and does not take office for another 6½ weeks. But his most fervent supporters already have reason to be disappointed in him. Witness the headline of a "news analysis" in today's New York Times: "Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality."

"As he moves closer to the White House," the Times reveals, "President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months." That itself is a big "if," as the Times acknowledges:

That status-of-forces agreement remains subject to change, by mutual agreement, and Army planners acknowledge privately that they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000--and some say as high as 70,000--for a substantial time even beyond 2011.

We may be in Iraq for a hundred years! The Times notes that "there always was a tension, if not a bit of a contradiction, in the two parts of Mr. Obama's campaign platform to 'end the war' by withdrawing all combat troops by May 2010":

To be sure, Mr. Obama was careful to say that the drawdowns he was promising included only combat troops. But supporters who keyed on the language of ending the war might be forgiven if they thought that would mean bringing home all of the troops.

Hmm, here is what the Times editorial page said about the subject when it endorsed Obama back in October:

The unnecessary and staggeringly costly war in Iraq must be ended as quickly and responsibly as possible.

While Iraq's leaders insist on a swift drawdown of American troops and a deadline for the end of the occupation, Mr. McCain is still talking about some ill-defined "victory." As a result, he has offered no real plan for extracting American troops and limiting any further damage to Iraq and its neighbors.

Mr. Obama was an early and thoughtful opponent of the war in Iraq, and he has presented a military and diplomatic plan for withdrawing American forces. Mr. Obama also has correctly warned that until the Pentagon starts pulling troops out of Iraq, there will not be enough troops to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

It is awfully generous of the Times to forgive Obama's supporters for believing what they read in the Times.

It must be said that not everyone is surprised to find Obama's campaign promises "muted by reality." Those of us who were paying attention to reality before Nov. 4 never took Obama's pledge to flee Iraq seriously. Although it is especially repugnant to seek political gain by promising to lose a war, it is also common for presidential candidates to make unrealistic promises, especially on foreign policy, and disregard them once elected. (Remember how George W. Bush was going to stop "nation building" and Bill Clinton was going to get tough on the Red Chinese?)

Obama thus is carrying on a long tradition of making empty and irresponsible promises.