• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Turns out, liberalism is a psychological disorder

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Could Barack Obama be certifiably stark raving mad, crazy, cuckoo, insane, batty, etc.? Could a disorder of the psyche be the cause of his displaying the symptoms of stupidity? Could Obama and his unbalanced band of schizo luminaries be curable with intensive in-patient therapy combined with apothecary science?

Who would be so bold as to make this accusation with such punctilious authority? Lyle Rossiter, that’s who. He makes these statements in his new book, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.

Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., MD, the highly regarded psychiatrist who received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago, has diagnosed liberal ideology as a mental disorder. Dr. Rossiter is a board-certified general and forensic psychiatrist with over 35 years of experience. He also is also a distinguished Diplomate in Psychiatry, member of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, Diplomate in Forensic Psychiatry, member of the American Board of Forensic Psychiatry, and has a private practice of general adult and forensic psychiatry.

So, what does that say about not only President Obama, but also Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Hillary Clinton, et al.? Dr. Rossiter declares, “the kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and his Democratic pseudo luminaries can only be understood as a psychological disorder.”

A comment by Dr. Rossiter concerning Barack Obama’s politics:

A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do. 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.

If you pay close attention to the maniacal policy schemes of Barack Obama, and subject yourself to the continual musings of the sycophantic media that grovel at the feet of all who are antithetical to the fundamentals of economics, common sense, and America, then the ensuing factualisms of Barack Obama’s ideology will ring true by Dr. Rossiter:

•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

Dr. Rossiter has encapsulated and summarized the entire Democratic mindset in one sentence: “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.”

If you read the book, you will also be enlightened with the secret liberal agenda, as explained by Dr. Rossiter. A few tidbits:

•The two major goals of the modern liberal agenda: the Modern Parental Society and the Modern Permissive Culture, and why they violate the basic principles of freedom

•How the modern liberal agenda attacks the moral and legal foundations of individual liberty

•How the modern liberal agenda violates the defining characteristics of human nature and ignores the essential realities of the human condition

•How the modern liberal agenda corrupts the character of the people by appealing to their base instincts and undermining the constraints of conscience

•How the modern liberal agenda’s ideas and goals are self-contradictory and logically inconsistent

•Why the liberal mind believes in the irrational principles of the liberal agenda– and what it takes to affect a cure

According to Dr. Rossiter, if you support Obama and his party, you support a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation, and injustice. Even if you did not vote for Obama, and are opposed to his maniacal policies, these self-fulfilling prophecies Dr. Rossiter illuminates, which are rapidly becoming cemented as his legacy, are now your dystopian reality. If you support Barack Obama, and answered B to the above questions, you can expect to never move beyond the role of worker, minority, or the little guy, and have a higher probability of being unemployed than during FDR’s Great One. If you support Barack Obama, you can expect to be poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited, and victimized, but despair not, as you will not have to bear responsibility for the problems you have created for yourself– it’s not your fault. None of your agonies are attributable to your faults or failings, not poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration, mental illness, or defects in character. If you support Barack Obama, none of your plights are caused by your failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the root causes of all your pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization, and imperialism. In the evolving manifestation of the psychotic mind of Barack Obama, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: big business, big corporations, greedy capitalists, US imperialism, conservative oppressors, the conservative rich, the conservative wealthy, the conservative powerful, the selfish, the conservatives in general, and most certainly, George Bush.

So there it is, the case for insanity. But what if there is more to it than crazy?

What if the maniacal and psychotic symptoms do come from unadulterated stupidity? Is the situation grimmer than insanity? What if their psychotic behavior does indeed originate from bad wiring and chemicals spasmodically dashing asunder in the noggin? Is there a modicum of hope? There are two plans of treatment that can absolutely cure the preposterous tomfoolery emitting from Washington, DC for either affliction: Treatment Plan A for plain stupidity and Treatment Plan B for mental disorders.

Treatment Plan A. If the liberals are just plain dumb, as the authentic intelligentsia have long believed, then that woeful affliction is treatable. The dire and daunting caveat is that dumbness can be cured with a very rigorous and long-term prescription of actual, fundamental, and useful education, especially history, composition, literature, economics, mathematics, and the sciences, and an intensive dose of the Constitution. Ivy League schools would, of course, based on the trend analysis of their governmental employment record, become the incarnate of political persona non grata in this endeavor as the above courses seem to have been replaced with Gynecology in the Ancient World, the Science of Superheroes, and whatnot.

Treatment Plan B. With a mental disorder, sometimes eradicating the mind of its infirmed status is as simple as an apothecary approach. Perhaps the untangling of our political imbroglio, and halting the assault on the American way of life, along with preserving the Constitution, could someday be as simple as the dissolving of a lozenge under one’s tongue, and perhaps an hour or two of mandated therapy semi-weekly.

But this is American politics, and all bets must be hedged, as in American politics there is no mutually exclusive agreement between stupid and insane. Prudence dictates that perhaps the entirety of the Democratic Party from Obama on down should be treated both for stupidity and insanity, as they produce strong characteristics of both afflictions, and hopefully at some juncture, they can become the fully functioning public servants their campaigns promised they would be.





Could Barack Obama be Insane? Plus, a Quiz!
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
shaumei said:
Stop taking the bait.

Tell us, wise one, what bait would that be? You fail to see that what is wrong with both parties is liberalism.

Define neo-con and you might start figuring this out. Is it Conservatism or liberalism that restricts your liberty?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
shaumei said:
Stop taking the bait.


Define neo-con and you might start figuring this out. Is it Conservatism or liberalism that restricts your liberty?

you are only looking at liberals as the problem. I have told you 1000 times they are on the same team and the media makes it into a game. you fall for it....

ask yourself this if the media was honest, why do they think that the dems can only be replaced by republicans? why do they never mention independents in their polls?

it is because they own both the dems and republicans....they cannot control indepedents.

ask JFK what happens when you stop allowing them to control you...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
shaumei said:
hypocritexposer said:
shaumei said:
Stop taking the bait.


Define neo-con and you might start figuring this out. Is it Conservatism or liberalism that restricts your liberty?

you are only looking at liberals as the problem. I have told you 1000 times they are on the same team and the media makes it into a game. you fall for it....

ask yourself this if the media was honest, why do they think that the dems can only be replaced by republicans? why do they never mention independents in their polls?

it is because they own both the dems and republicans....they cannot control indepedents.

ask JFK what happens when you stop allowing them to control you...


Your problem is that you believe all republicans are not liberal. And that all Dems. are not conservative.

Maybe you should start off by going back and determining what Conservatives believe and what liberals believe. The name of political party has nothing to do with it.

Then let us all know if this "ownership" you speak of, is a liberal or conservative trait and philosophy.

Have you been able to define neo-con yet?
 

Tam

Well-known member
shaumei said:
hypocritexposer said:
shaumei said:
Stop taking the bait.


Define neo-con and you might start figuring this out. Is it Conservatism or liberalism that restricts your liberty?

you are only looking at liberals as the problem. I have told you 1000 times they are on the same team and the media makes it into a game. you fall for it....

ask yourself this if the media was honest, why do they think that the dems can only be replaced by republicans? why do they never mention independents in their polls?

it is because they own both the dems and republicans....they cannot control indepedents.

ask JFK what happens when you stop allowing them to control you...

We are to believe everything you tell us when you say "I have told you 1000 times" and you have only posted 384 times. :? :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
tam,

you are not good with math...in each post I have told you over 3 times....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
shaumei said:
tam,

you are not good with math...in each post I have told you over 3 times....

No intelligent response to my questions?


Have you been able to define neo-con yet?


I'll give you a hint.

neo-
pref.
1. New; recent: Neolithic.
2.
a. New and different: neoimpressionism.
b. New and abnormal: neoplasm.
3. New World: Neotropical.
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
shaumei said:
tam,

you are not good with math...in each post I have told you over 3 times....

No intelligent response to my questions?


Have you been able to define neo-con yet?


I'll give you a hint.

neo-
pref.
1. New; recent: Neolithic.
2.
a. New and different: neoimpressionism.
b. New and abnormal: neoplasm.
3. New World: Neotropical.

let me help!!!

new conservative = old liberal..

Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, which supports using modern American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries.

The term neoconservative was used at one time as a criticism against proponents of American modern liberalism who had "moved to the right"

"New" conservatives initially approached this view from the political left. The forerunners of neoconservatism were most often socialists or sometimes liberals

Some members of the mid-20th century literary group, The New York Intellectuals were forebears of neoconservatism.[15] The most notable was literary critic Lionel Trilling, who wrote, "In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition."

basically a bunch of moderate liberals who could not get the left to move right, so they decided to try to move the right left...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Steve said:
hypocritexposer said:
shaumei said:
tam,

you are not good with math...in each post I have told you over 3 times....

No intelligent response to my questions?


Have you been able to define neo-con yet?


I'll give you a hint.

neo-
pref.
1. New; recent: Neolithic.
2.
a. New and different: neoimpressionism.
b. New and abnormal: neoplasm.
3. New World: Neotropical.

let me help!!!

new conservative = old liberal..

Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, which supports using modern American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries.

The term neoconservative was used at one time as a criticism against proponents of American modern liberalism who had "moved to the right"

"New" conservatives initially approached this view from the political left. The forerunners of neoconservatism were most often socialists or sometimes liberals

Some members of the mid-20th century literary group, The New York Intellectuals were forebears of neoconservatism.[15] The most notable was literary critic Lionel Trilling, who wrote, "In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition."

basically a bunch of moderate liberals who could not get the left to move right, so they decided to try to move the right left...



do you think shamoo will pick up on this, or will he continue to deny what makes the Republican and democratic parties similar?


Hey shamoo? Is personal liberty a conservative or liberal philosophy? Is manipulating the truth, so the voters will vote for less personal liberty and more governmental control, a liberal or conservative philosophy?

Is the majority of media, liberal or conservative?
 

hopalong

Well-known member
shaumei said:
tam,

you are not good with math...in each post I have told you over 3 times....

In this discussion alone you missed telling us in two posts, so just who is bad with math, and who is full of hot air? and who has losts it mind.?
 

jingo2

Well-known member
hopalong said:
shaumei said:
tam,

you are not good with math...in each post I have told you over 3 times....

In this discussion alone you missed telling us in two posts, so just who is bad with math, and who is full of hot air? and who has losts it mind.?


I don't make a habit of responding to the __hoppy_______ drivel but I will this time.

__Hoppy______wants to come on here and disrupt the board with his BS and if everyone doesn't clamor to his side he calls them morons. No __Hop___ we and mainly me have had enough of your disruptions and not wanting to have a descussion. Since that is the game you play I thought it was only appropiate to respond the way I did. If you ever want to respond to posts in an adult manner then you will get some respect. ( borrowed from a post by Larry)
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Ok miss kojingo, you claim i call people morons.
Show me miss Georgia mouth big mouth where I call people morons?

You can't so you will just slink off and hide behind your "Mattell" Cessna Citation X :wink: :wink:
 

jingo2

Well-known member
hopalong said:
Ok miss kojingo, you claim i call people morons.
Show me miss Georgia mouth big mouth where I call people morons?

You can't so you will just slink off and hide behind your "Mattell" Cessna Citation X :wink: :wink:



I don't make a habit of responding to the __hoppy_______ drivel but I will this time.

__Hoppy______wants to come on here and disrupt the board with his BS and if everyone doesn't clamor to his side he calls them morons. No __Hop___ we and mainly me have had enough of your disruptions and not wanting to have a descussion. Since that is the game you play I thought it was only appropiate to respond the way I did. If you ever want to respond to posts in an adult manner then you will get some respect. ( borrowed from a post by Larry)
 

hopalong

Well-known member
jingo2 said:
hopalong said:
Ok miss kojingo, you claim i call people morons.
Show me miss Georgia mouth big mouth where I call people morons?

You can't so you will just slink off and hide behind your "Mattell" Cessna Citation X :wink: :wink:



I don't make a habit of responding to the __hoppy_______ drivel but I will this time.

__Hoppy______wants to come on here and disrupt the board with his BS and if everyone doesn't clamor to his side he calls them morons. No __Hop___ we and mainly me have had enough of your disruptions and not wanting to have a descussion. Since that is the game you play I thought it was only appropiate to respond the way I did. If you ever want to respond to posts in an adult manner then you will get some respect. ( borrowed from a post by Larry)

:D :D :D :D
See folks she can't, so she repeats herself, a true sign of losing ones mind, oppppssss you have you have one before you can lose it!

EH? kokingo
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Now then I will adk you agian tyo show where I called someone a moron!

It is now open for DISCSSION, should you care to discuss it, or are you doing the very thing you are accusing me of? :wink: :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Steve said:
hypocritexposer said:
No intelligent response to my questions?


Have you been able to define neo-con yet?


I'll give you a hint.

let me help!!!

new conservative = old liberal..

Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, which supports using modern American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries.

The term neoconservative was used at one time as a criticism against proponents of American modern liberalism who had "moved to the right"

"New" conservatives initially approached this view from the political left. The forerunners of neoconservatism were most often socialists or sometimes liberals

Some members of the mid-20th century literary group, The New York Intellectuals were forebears of neoconservatism.[15] The most notable was literary critic Lionel Trilling, who wrote, "In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition."

basically a bunch of moderate liberals who could not get the left to move right, so they decided to try to move the right left...



do you think shamoo will pick up on this, or will he continue to deny what makes the Republican and democratic parties similar?


Hey shamoo? Is personal liberty a conservative or liberal philosophy? Is manipulating the truth, so the voters will vote for less personal liberty and more governmental control, a liberal or conservative philosophy?

Is the majority of media, liberal or conservative?

here is your problem:

060910top.jpg
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Still can't answer with any type of intelligent response, can you?

I find it amusing that you respond in the same manner as you criticize others for.

I thought we could have an intelligent discussion, but I guess you are not capable. I won't make that mistake again.
 
Top