Liberals Clinically Mad, Concludes Top Psychiatrist

Liberals Clinically Mad, Concludes Top Psychiatrist

www.wnd.com

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.

....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.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is downright hilarious (In a Partisan Fashion), although it does bring about some valid points, as well as serious questions. I urge everyone to read through the entire article, before jumping all over the allegations; as this Doctor puts forth an amazing amount of insight.

For the more Liberal-minded individuals reading this, remember that this article is essentially referring to the current Extreme-Liberalism which is taking over America. Just because you consider yourself a "Liberal", does not automatically place you into this category.

My view is that this "study" is aimed at the vocal, brash, and irrational grouping of Leftists who are currently running wild with the Democrat Party.

www.wnd.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by TheAgentNineteen

www.digitaljournal.com...
I'm suprised it took WND so long to find this, I found a article on it that goes back to february. I'm guessing it's just a satire. Alls fair in love, war and politics.

Most of its claims are not so subtle reversals of the conclusions reached by four distinguished scholars that were funded by the US Government in a study to discover the roots of conservatism.

The report "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition" cost $1.2 million and was supervised by the National Foundation as well as the National Institutes of Health. It found that conservatism is essentially a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".

...

At the time that this report came out conservatives were outraged and dismissed the whole thing as merely the opinion of the scientists involved. It is highly amusing now to watch conservatives fall all over themselves to tout Dr. Rossiter unscientific and undocumented political scree simply because it gives them comfort in the face of their impending humiliation at the polls come November.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by djpaec]

I guess in the reverse that the Ultra Neo-Cons are of the same caliber! Passion has always been thought of by the 'Shrinks' as an illness. I sometimes have to agree with them on that point. As much as I disagree with ultra liberals I still think most have the contents of their cocanutz well in hand!!

Zindo

Wow, setting himself up to be attacked isn't he. I can kinda see his point though, some extreme liberals do seem to be a bit crazy sometimes. Not all liberals, but some of the more extreme ones.

And I find it hilarious as well. Just can't decide if I think it's hilarious cause I'm kinda in shock that he called liberals mad, or if it really is hilarious.

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
For the more Liberal-minded individuals reading this, remember that this article is essentially referring to the current Extreme-Liberalism which is taking over America. Just because you consider yourself a "Liberal", does not automatically place you into this category.

I only see "Liberal" in the thread title, not "Extreme-Liberalism"

So basically you're saying, "Hey, I don't think this article is labeling all liberals, but for baiting purposes I'm going to title this thread generally because making the title more specific won't bring in liberals wanting to argue"

Gotcha.

Originally posted by davion
So basically you're saying, "Hey, I don't think this article is labeling all liberals, but for baiting purposes I'm going to title this thread generally because making the title more specific won't bring in liberals wanting to argue"

Heh, to be fair, though, that's kind of par for the course as of late.

As to the OP and link, I think what bothers me about this kind of book is that it reinforces the two party dichotomy. Even worse, it creates an "us vs. them" relationship on both sides...left-leaning readers think well, that's the the right spreading hysterical lies and right-leaning readers think those damn liberals are mentally unfit to lead. The end result is that both sides view the opposite side as "the other" and totally unfit for dialogue.

At that point we are no longer two sides in a debate, and there is no room for movement of ideas or growth. That's death for a democracy.

A republican on the Sean Hannity message board put it best.

Although I would love nothing more then to attribute mental disorder to those we call liberal...or fringe left....I can't. That would be no different then calling the right..or fringe conservative mentally unbalanced. The more views we have...the more voices we have...the better our laws and society will be...even if they are from the far kooky left.

As Sean Hannity would say, that a 'great american'.

When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.

Is this guy kidding with his "imaginary victims" and "imaginary villains" comment?

Yea, so I guess we all just "imagined" the 10s of millions of people living below the poverty line, we just "imagined" the millions of homeless people living on the streets of every major city, we just "imagined" that millions of people in this country have no access to health care.

And I suppose we also "imagined" the golden parachutes given to the top executives of failed companies, and "imagined" the oil companies making record profits while hard working Americans suffered record oil prices, and "imagined" the no-bid, cost-plus contracts given to Halliburton by the Bush administration.

Come on, this guy is a joke and is just POd that his taxes are going to increase and he won't be able to buy the new 5 series BMW when it comes out. He just wants to be added to conservative book shelves that include titles like "How to talk to liberals: If you must" (Ann Coulter) and "Culture Warrior" (Bill O'Reilly). The funny thing is, he wasn't even original, Michael Savage already published a book called "Liberalism is a mental disorder."

[edit on 14-11-2008 by BluegrassRevolutionary]

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen


My view is that this "study" is aimed at the vocal, brash, and irrational grouping of Leftists who are currently running wild with the Democrat Party.

www.wnd.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

You mean as opposed to the "vocal, brash, and irrational grouping of" Rightists who are currently running wild with the Republican party?


So why didn't the good doctor come out and say that a belief in extremes in general, whether Conservative or Liberal applies?

BECAUSE HE IS A SHILL!

There I said it.

As a reformed Republican, I submit this with the greatest of sympathies...


www.guardian.co.uk...

A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".
As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.
All of them "preached a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality".

Republicans are demanding to know why the psychologists behind the report, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, received $1.2m in public funds for their research from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance.

"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.

One of the psychologists behind the study, Jack Glaser, said the aversion to shades of grey and the need for "closure" could explain the fact that the Bush administration ignored intelligence that contradicted its beliefs about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.