posted March 25, 2008 12:03 PM            

They are really victims of arrested development and are narcissists from the crowns of their heads to the soles of their feet.

How else to explain the belief they are intellectually, morally and spiritually superior beings capable of running everyone elses lives when history records virtually every initiative they undertake is fatally flawed, from concept to implementation?

Oh yeah, it's not results which count with these leftist narcissists, it's intentions.

Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts

Eminent psychiatrist makes case ideology is mental disorder
Posted: February 15, 2008
3:40 pm Eastern
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 the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination 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."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

posted March 25, 2008 12:29 PM            

I love how he says, "a social scientists" would know...is he a social scientist? No, he's a medical doctor. What he's talking about is clearly outside of his field of expertise, as what he's saying is utter hogwash.

And praytell, what mental disorder do liberals have? The article conveniently fails to mention that.

posted March 25, 2008 12:33 PM            

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93bWZV3485I&feature=user

posted March 25, 2008 12:38 PM            

This is quite the objective, credible news source. LOL

Gays' respect and tolerance
Posted: March 25, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008
Draw a cartoon or produce a film that exposes radical Islam as violent and just sit back and wait to be proven right.

Similarly, expose the homosexual agenda of intimidation and brace yourself for the flood of hate speech, death threats and, well, intimidation.

Oklahoma state Rep. Sally Kern knows all about it. She gave a speech on it recently where she said:

What they're trying to do is send a message of intimidation to those people who are taking a stand for traditional marriage and against the homosexual lifestyle. They want to silence us, is what they want to do. And it's happening all over the state. You know, the very fact that I'm talking to you like this, here today, puts me in jeopardy. OK, and so, so be it.

And now with more than 30,000 e-mails, the homosexual lobby has proven her right. Here's a sample of their "respect and tolerance:"

YOU NAZI FREAK!!!! …YOU MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a bigoted moron you are … a hate-filled, lying idiot. You would have made a great Nazi if you'd only have been born earlier.

I heard what you said and you should be killed you stupid c---- b----! along with George W. Bush! Christianity is the cancer in our society and should be eliminated!

YOU ARE A HOMOPHOBIC DIPSH-- YOU F---ING C--- DIE. You're a horrible person who deserves to burn in hell.
That was the nicest thing this guy said. If I dashed out the obscenities in the rest, there wouldn't be anything left except this: "… you stupid dyke." Now if we said that, we'd be facing charges of "hate speech."

Here's another gem:

Please, go kill yourself.

These were the "nice ones"; the others prompted the Department of Public Safety to assign Rep. Sally Kern a bodyguard.

Ellen DeGeneres joined in the ridicule when she tried to call Kern on her show. Instead of bothering Rep. Kern, perhaps DeGeneres would care to contact the thousands in the homosexual community whose vulgar comments threatened Kern's life.

Look, the 76 percent of Oklahomans who agreed with Sally when they voted to protect marriage between a man and a woman understand that if the battle to save marriage is lost, we will have lost the foundation of our civilization. That's why Rep. Kern said this agenda is the "biggest threat … that our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat."

Now the Muslim community wants an apology, too. No kidding.

Then Ellen and her audience laughed at Rep. Kern's words regarding the indoctrination of our young:

Because what's happening now, they're going after, in schools, 2-year-olds. You know what, they're trying to get early childhood education. They want to get our young children into the government schools so they can indoctrinate them. I taught school for close to 20 years and we're not teaching facts and knowledge any more, folks; we're teaching indoctrination.
Read what the homosexual activists have to say, and it's not quite so funny. Co-producer of "It's Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School" Debra Chasnoff stated: "What's clear in the film is that the younger the kids, the more open they were. If we could start doing this kind of education in kindergarten, first grade, second grade, we'd have a better education." Better, uh, homosexual indoctrination, that is.

Why does this matter? As I wrote about in "The Criminalization of Christianity," the numbers speak for themselves: According to Time magazine, 18 percent of teens in San Francisco either claim to be homosexual or are "questioning" their sexual orientation. In the most pro-homosexual arena in the country, nearly 20 percent claim to be homosexual or "questioning" compared to the national average, which is as low as 1 to 3 percent of all teens. What you teach children impacts what they think. Duh.

But now the junior brainwashing books have moved beyond Heather and her "two mommies," "Daddy's Roommate" and "Gloria Goes to Gay Pride." Now there are over 100 of them literally ranging from A ("Amy Asks a Question: Grandma, What's a Lesbian?") to Z ("Zack's Story: Growing up with Same-sex Parents"). The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network of Colorado recommends 91 of them.

All leading to a lifestyle that puts our kids at risk:

As I wrote about in "The Criminalization of Christianity," we don't have smoking sections in the high school cafeteria and don't read about "Heather's Two Cigarettes" in elementary school because smoking is downright bad for you. What people don't seem to grasp is that homosexual behavior is even worse – up to three times more dangerous than smoking.

The Canadian Medical Association Journal (Jan. 11, 2000) said, "Among young gay and bisexual men in Vancouver, the HIV/AIDS epidemic has reduced life expectancy by up to 20 years."

According to the New England Journal of Medicine (Feb. 12, 1998), smoking, on the other hand, reduces your life expectancy "7.3 years for men and 6.0 years for women."

Homosexuality is three times more dangerous than smoking. Think about that when they insist on teaching it to your children. And that doesn't even touch the other life-threatening risks ranging from hepatitis to fatal rectal cancer.

Apparently, it's having somewhat of a negative impact abroad, as well. We just sent $15 billion of our tax dollars to Africa to fight HIV and AIDS over there. Yep. What we need is more behavior that leads to this. I wonder if they'll reveal to the kindergarteners that Daddy's roommate has AIDS?

My favorite part of Kern's speech was:

If you've never read, here's another book, "The Criminalization of Christianity" by Janet Folger. Every Christian ought to read that book, "The Criminalization of Christianity." It is an awesome book, and if that doesn't scare you and motivate you, something's wrong.
An agenda of intimidation seeking to silence all who dare oppose it. Ask Anita Bryant. Ask Sally Kern. If you don't believe them, just watch a while longer.

If you want to stand with Rep. Kern, make a donation of at least $33 for an ad to support and defend her freedom to speak the truth at the Faith2Action website.

posted March 25, 2008 01:00 PM            

quote:

---

Leave to a doctor to know how to make a quick buck, right?

---

He works for what Jwhop would deem "Ambulance chasers," so... yes. If he were in North Carolina he could have been employed by John Edwards.

posted March 25, 2008 01:21 PM            

His experience of treating more than 1500 actual patients as well as testifying in more than 2700 "criminal" and civil cases gives Rossiter a patina of experience which can't simply be brushed off by self serving leftist blather.

What, you expected to see this article on the front pages of the leftist NY Times? You really must be nuts.

Now Blue, show me your academic and/or your medical/psychiatric credentials to even comment on something you know little of nothing about.

You too acoustic.

posted March 25, 2008 01:38 PM            

Just because someone has no credentials doesn't mean they don't speak the truth.

posted March 25, 2008 02:14 PM            

quote:

---

Your main problem with Rossiter is that he has the leftist mind pegged cold.

---

On the contrary, I believe he's sincerely wrong, and of a warped perspective.

posted March 25, 2008 02:20 PM            

Unless you're attempting to reclassify me as something other than a "conservative".

posted March 25, 2008 02:22 PM            

This is a psychiatric opinion acoustic. It's not a research paper delivered to a medical journal for "peer review".

posted March 25, 2008 02:48 PM            

quote:

---

This is a psychiatric opinion acoustic. It's not a research paper delivered to a medical journal for "peer review".

---

I know. Why do you think that is?

posted March 25, 2008 02:52 PM            

That does describe the attitude of a minority of the general public, but I doubt it falls neatly into political allegiances. Most likely someone who holds this attitude won't be bothered to go out and vote, they'd expect the same service from whoever was in power, they wouldn't care. About 30% of the population doesn't bother to vote in any election, less if it is raining. I doubt the U.K is unique in this respect, maybe for the amount of rain.

Quite possibly someone subscribing to this attitudes would hold views that are quite rightist. Typically you would get it in someone moaning about how all the foreignors are getting free houses, where are theirs? I've had to sit through such tirades as a local government worker (briefly) ~ believe me it could be hard to bite on my tongue given that I am married to an immigrant. And the daughter of one, too. Neither of them would shuffle off cap in hand for a hand-out if they could help it.

posted March 25, 2008 03:00 PM            

quote:

---

Now Xodian, you've had enough experience with me...here to know this is the worst kind of BS. And you're not the only one.
Unless you're attempting to reclassify me as something other than a "conservative".

"Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work."

---

Oh you know my non-conformist mind would never do something like that .

But I pasted the article on grounds of its support for Liberals and how it depicts under an incoherent defination of liberalism, that Liberals can adapt and evolve to change better then non-liberals; Totally vauge if you ask me.

However, the same thing applies to the article you pasted . I don't know what this Doc's defination of liberalism is or even if he conducted his research upon a set scale or just "winged it" through random case files.

posted March 25, 2008 03:07 PM            

Has it occurred to you Blue you have exhibited some of the very behaviors Rossiter dubbed "clinical insanity"?

"whining about imaginary victims and raging against imaginary villians."

posted March 25, 2008 03:37 PM            

If these so called researchers submitted their findings to a medical journal for peer review, they'd be laughed out of the profession.

You sound like you're whining again acoustic. This is a Psychiatric professional with 35 years in practice and with the credentials to support his opinions. He's also not part of the "vast right wing conspiracy" leftists are forever consumed with refuting.

Want more proof of leftist whining and shrieking...just like the developmentally challenged children Rossiter says they are?

Let's look at PEST...Post Election Stress Trauma. You do remember all those leftists who were off the rails when Kerry lost the 2004 election...you do don't you?

Well, some of them sought clinical help and psychiatric professionals hung a name on what ailed them PEST and treated them.
I don't recall any research papers on the subject being submitted for "peer review". They just named the disorder and treated.

posted March 25, 2008 04:19 PM            

quote:

---

You sound like you're whining again acoustic. This is a Psychiatric professional with 35 years in practice and with the credentials to support his opinions. He's also not part of the "vast right wing conspiracy" leftists are forever consumed with refuting.

---

Why would I whine about an opinion piece from a middle-American psychiatrist?

Like I've mentioned, there are people with equal or better experience who would poo-poo his hypothesis particularly on grounds that they consider themselves Liberals.

The University studies that we've posted here previously have been scientifically drawn up and put together, and they contrast sharply with this man's opinion. There's simply nothing here to be concerned about. If you believe there is, then you better start getting on the phone to all the Universities in the country, because as you've mentioned before, they're crawling with Liberals.

posted March 25, 2008 04:52 PM            

quote:

---

Xodian, the research you posted is fatally flawed. No serious researcher would begin reserach on a subject based on political profiles without first determining what the research subjects actual political beliefs really are. Self identification is the worst possible basis for determination.
If these so called researchers submitted their findings to a medical journal for peer review, they'd be laughed out of the profession.

---

But can't the same be argued for what this Doc. here is doing? How do I know he isn't identifying Liberalism with Fasisim in a bias view? Or for that matter, what did he set as a standard for his defination of Liberalism?

posted March 25, 2008 06:05 PM            

You ask WHY you would whine about an opinion piece acoustic...an opinion delivered by a Board Certified professional with 35 years of professional experience.

Simple answer acoustic. Your default mode is whine as I've pointed out to you endlessly.

And yet acoustic, here you are whining about an opinion you say you don't respect in the first place. Would it be unscientific of me to say you are exhibiting the very behavior Rossiter identified?

posted March 25, 2008 06:11 PM            

quote:

---

Xodian, if this is the standard of research, process research at American universities or any other university then it's no wonder most of it is useless junk science.

---

posted March 25, 2008 06:43 PM            

quote:

---

You ask WHY you would whine about an opinion piece acoustic...an opinion delivered by a Board Certified professional with 35 years of professional experience.

Simple answer acoustic. Your default mode is whine as I've pointed out to you endlessly.

And yet acoustic, here you are whining about an opinion you say you don't respect in the first place. Would it be unscientific of me to say you are exhibiting the very behavior Rossiter identified?

Quick acoustic, say you're just bored and didn't have anything else to do.

---

You notice that it's not me putting up these whiny pieces with whiny headlines.

What I do is balance things out with reality.

You must be reflecting your own whiny nature on to me. Remember, when you're not here posting comes to a near standstill. It's your provocation, your whining, that gets this place active.