Liberals are clinically nuts

[Leafless]

Precisely. Proof positive that sources are never checked for credibility by the right wing.

This proves the insanity of the left if they have not figured at this late time the invasion of Iraq was necessary to preserve the interest of the free world from the starting of a cultural invasion from Muslim countries and Islam.

I have not heard to many criticisms from the left, directed at Saddam who was given the opportunity to surrender but did not, which in fact if he did would have saved many lives.

[Drea]

This proves the insanity of the left if they have not figured at this late time the invasion of Iraq was necessary to preserve the interest of the free world from the starting of a cultural invasion from Muslim countries and Islam.

I have not heard to many criticisms from the left, directed at Saddam who was given the opportunity to surrender but did not, which in fact if he did would have saved many lives.

Iraq is (was) not the most repressive fanatical Muslim country. Saudi Arabia is far more fundamental yet Bush is still holding hands with them.

The alleged highjackers were Saudi, yet Bush is still holding hands with them.

Why is the rightwing not up in arms about this?

You'd rather slam liberals than look the facts in the face. And that, my friends, is the insanity of the rightwing.

The fact is that the rightwing prefers to be kept in the dark and told what to think.

[M.Dancer]

I'm not a psychiatrist but you would have to be nuts to posit that the rational for the Iraq war was to stem a cultural invasion.....

[guyser]

This proves the insanity of the left if they have not figured at this late time the invasion of Iraq was necessary to preserve the interest of the free world from the starting of a cultural invasion from Muslim countries and Islam.

This needs to be repeated. GJG !

[guyser]

I'm not a psychiatrist but you would have to be nuts to posit that the rational for the Iraq war was to stem a cultural invasion.....

If nothing else he is consistent. As to what................

[Carinthia]

The guy is a right wing shrink. He needs to visit a left wing shrink to get his head screwed back on.

[Guest American Woman]

This mental disorder is a socialistic cancer in Canada and has destroyed the normal standard of how the country should be politically governed .

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/answers2/front...18104456AAMZe7D

Thoughts.

The author of that book is obviously a conservative who doesn't agree with liberal ideals. No more, no less. Furthermore, this study says:

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".

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.

So I guess we're all nuts, eh?

[guyser]

So I guess we're all nuts, eh?

Pretty much I suppose.

Kind of like the older I get the more I realize every family is dysfunctional.

(you've been around too long....you are using "eh" !)

[jdobbin]

This proves the insanity of the left if they have not figured at this late time the invasion of Iraq was necessary to preserve the interest of the free world from the starting of a cultural invasion from Muslim countries and Islam.

That certainly was not how the war was sold. It was sold as the only method to get rid of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. To this day some on the right wing believe they have those weapons.

[Leafless]

So I guess we're all nuts, eh?

The study you quoted has their authors relating to their report retreating and distancing themselves from their report being associated to conservatism but rather attribute their findings to "general human dimensions", unlike the psychiatric analysis I quoted relating to the Liberals.

The authors, presumably aware of the outrage they were likely to trigger, added a disclaimer that their study "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false".

Another author, Arie Kruglanski, of the University of Maryland, said he had received hate mail since the article was published, but he insisted that the study "is not critical of conservatives at all". "The variables we talk about are general human dimensions," he said. "These are the same dimensions that contribute to loyalty and commitment to the group. Liberals might be less intolerant of ambiguity, but they may be less decisive, less committed, less loyal."

So in effect this report is related to society at large is not directed at conservatism at all.

Next time read your entire rebuttal before posting something that is apparent to you as condemning but in fact is not.

More wishy washy liberal nonsense.

[Leafless]

Precisely, it means nothing medically nor do I allege it to mean anything medically and is offered as my opinion which, as you say, means nothing. Do you think perhaps it could happen that medical labeling of the left-wing is possible and we could have political prosecution based upon medical opinion? Politically speaking, that kind of labeling would not be unheard of.

Your opinion is important.

There really are no grounds for any type of liberal prosecution, unless proven by law, liberals are unfit and are a danger to society.

Now, that is something to think about, eh?

[Guest American Woman]

The study you quoted has their authors relating to their report retreating and distancing themselves from their report being associated to conservatism but rather attribute their findings to "general human dimensions", unlike the psychiatric analysis I quoted relating to the Liberals.

So in effect this report is related to society at large is not directed at conservatism at all.

Next time read your entire rebuttal before posting something that is apparent to you as condemning but in fact is not.

More wishy washy liberal nonsense.

I read the entire article. It wasn't meant as a "rebuttal," but only as proof that one can find studies that that say both liberals and conservatives are "nuts." The difference between the report I cited and the "psychiatric analysis" (ie: the opinion of a conservative psychiatrist) is the people in the report I cited are more open minded. Thanks for pointing that out. If anything, that would make their opinion more valuable in my mind.

But I'm not here to "rebutt" the asinine claim that "liberals are clinically nuts" because it would be the most pointless, useless waste I time I can possibly think of.

But yes. The report is directed at conservatism, whether you want to see that or not.

[Guest American Woman]

Pretty much I suppose.

Kind of like the older I get the more I realize every family is dysfunctional.

(you've been around too long....you are using "eh" !)

I know what you mean. It's more a matter of "how much" than "if." As the saying goes, we're all crazy but in different ways. I like to add 'and some more than others' because I think that's true too.

I've always used "eh" though. That can't be blamed on the board.

Edited February 28, 2008 by American Woman

[Pliny]

The study you quoted has their authors relating to their report retreating and distancing themselves from their report being associated to conservatism but rather attribute their findings to "general human dimensions", unlike the psychiatric analysis I quoted relating to the Liberals.

So in effect this report is related to society at large is not directed at conservatism at all.

Next time read your entire rebuttal before posting something that is apparent to you as condemning but in fact is not.

More wishy washy liberal nonsense.

Hey...It sounds like you are checking the credibility of the sources there, Lefty!

[Leafless]

But I'm not here to "rebutt" the asinine claim that "liberals are clinically nuts" because it would be the most pointless, useless waste I time I can possibly think of.

I agree trying to defend the liberals is a useless waste of time.

[Leafless]

Hey...It sounds like you are checking the credibility of the sources there, Lefty!

Since when do the liberals check the credibility of sources?

Mostly, liberal allegations are all inventions of the imagination, hearsay or rumours.

[Guest American Woman]

I agree trying to defend the liberals is a useless waste of time.

And your mindset is my proof as to why it would be a useless waste of time. So thank you for that.

This may come as a shock to you, but I don't feel the need to defend liberals any more than I feel a need to argue that the conservative mindset is based on a "set of neuroses." I'm confident in who I am and I seriously think the conservative psychologist who feels qualified to diagnose all liberals as "clinically nuts" is a bit nutty himself.

Out of curiosity, I searched his name. Dr. Lyle Rossiter is board-certified in general and forensic psychiatry. This is what his website says:

In essence, the forensic psychiatrist evaluates the competencies of certain persons to understand and accomodate lawful obligations to others. link

I guess part of that "evaluation" would be to ask the "certain person" what their political leanings are, and if they are a liberal, he would have to declare them "clinically nuts."

Edited February 29, 2008 by American Woman

[Leafless]

This may come as a shock to you, but I don't feel the need to defend liberals any more than I feel a need to argue that the conservative mindset is based on a "set of neuroses." I'm confident in who I am and I seriously think the conservative psychologist who feels qualified to diagnose all liberals as "clinically nuts" is a bit nutty himself.

My, you do have a lot of confidence in yourself, inflated though it may seem and unqualified.

[Guest American Woman]

My, you do have a lot of confidence in yourself, inflated though it may seem and unqualified.

Yep. I do have confidence in myself. As to why that would bother you, I could only speculate-- but I don't have the desire to do that, either.

Edited February 29, 2008 by American Woman

[Leafless]

Yep. I do have confidence in myself. As to why that would bother you, I could only speculate-- but I don't have the desire to do that, either.

Doesn't bother me in the least, but your delusion as an egghead does.

[Oleg Bach]

The guy is a right wing shrink. He needs to visit a left wing shrink to get his head screwed back on.

Here is an example of liberal lunacy - a teacher who is not a doctor - a social worker who is not a doctor - a doctor that has no record of you and relationship consists of a thirty second conversation - all believe that medication of the public is the first step to a better society..I would say that these liberals are nuts - to automatically say to a person and not being a qualified professional that they are nuts and need to be medicated is true crazy liberalism - that is akin to THEM being so arrogant that they actually believe they are sane all all the others are nuts - I know of an older woman who was down and out and was pleading for reasonalby to a social worker...the poor old woman because she was so down trodden began to weep. The liberal social worker commented about the natural crying and said "You should take some medication for that (weeping"..

The whole nation is being doped so all can fit into little slots of compliance and ge alone well in the beastly liberal machine ---INSTEAD of changing and improving the social atmosphere - believe that the person or the victim should be changed chemically to fit the posionous environment they think is just fine...this is like blaming the rape victim for the rape - the hypocritical liberal mind and their presented false benevolence is actually cruelty disguised...they are out for them selves and they hunt in conspiratorial bureacratic pacts...liberals are crazed animals who pretend they are gentle.

[socred]

Here is an example of liberal lunacy - a teacher who is not a doctor - a social worker who is not a doctor - a doctor that has no record of you and relationship consists of a thirty second conversation - all believe that medication of the public is the first step to a better society..I would say that these liberals are nuts - to automatically say to a person and not being a qualified professional that they are nuts and need to be medicated is true crazy liberalism - that is akin to THEM being so arrogant that they actually believe they are sane all all the others are nuts - I know of an older woman who was down and out and was pleading for reasonalby to a social worker...the poor old woman because she was so down trodden began to weep. The liberal social worker commented about the natural crying and said "You should take some medication for that (weeping"..

The whole nation is being doped so all can fit into little slots of compliance and ge alone well in the beastly liberal machine ---INSTEAD of changing and improving the social atmosphere - believe that the person or the victim should be changed chemically to fit the posionous environment they think is just fine...this is like blaming the rape victim for the rape - the hypocritical liberal mind and their presented false benevolence is actually cruelty disguised...they are out for them selves and they hunt in conspiratorial bureacratic pacts...liberals are crazed animals who pretend they are gentle.

This has nothing to do with "liberalism", but merely the deterministic philosophy of materialism, which many libertarians themselves hold. Determinism leads to the belief that all actions result in a reaction whereby the concept of "free will" is negated. "Objecitivists" erroneously argue that free will itself is an identity, but in so doing, deny the very freedom needed in order for free will to assert its freedom. Freedom is a contradiction, which is exactly what we should expect to find since reason is deterministic.

Materialistic philosophy leads to the psychology of "excuses". Johnny didn't rape and kill the neighbor because he "chose" to act in an immoral fashion, he raped and killed the neighbor because he was depressed, suffered from generalized anxiety disorder, and ADD. Because he had these "mental illnesses", they "caused" him to rape and kill his neighbor.

This is a battle that needs to be waged on the philosophical level, for those that deny free will also deny the existence of morality. If the concept of morality is negated, what is the meaning of justice? Is it any wonder in the materialistic age we have generations of people who do not understand the meaning of morality?

Edited March 1, 2008 by socred

[Brain Candy]

Psychology was originally based in philosophy, It started to turn to madness as the scope of "abnormal behaviour" turned from people who were literally off the wall insane to include people who thought sort of oddly, were insecure, or got depressed (geniuses get depressed all the time, imagine how little Schubert would have composed strung out on prozak). I think its medical manifestation psychiatry is the main part that is totally philosophically destructive. I am fairly certain all people have the potential with a little encouragement to break free of depression, or calm an abnormal amount of energy, because since these conditions occur so often they must have a natural purpose and solution, unless the majority of people today are mutants.

[jazzer]

This mental disorder is a socialistic cancer in Canada and has destroyed the normal standard of how the country should be politically governed .

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/answers2/front...18104456AAMZe7D

Thoughts.

Works both ways Leafless.

"...academic researchers have surely amassed enough evidence of psychopathology that conservatism can listed in the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders http://allpsych.com/disorders/dsm.html.

link

[Pliny]

...liberals are crazed animals who pretend they are gentle.

I liked your post. It is, in my opinion, quite accurate.

Liberalism, however, is where crazed animals who pretend they are gentle are welcomed. The gentleness is a form of "sheep's clothing" and many well-intentioned individuals gullibly chant the mantra of "good intentions".