Little Ball of Hate

FOREWORD.
Many of us are familiar with the left-wing’s penchant for referring to rightwingers
as “right-wing nuts”. It is harder for liberals to refer to those holding Ph.D.s as
“nuts”, but I have known some of the latter who were a little strange. However, would
a left-winger refer to a psychiatrist (who naturally holds an M.D.) as a nut? Especially
one who has forty years experience as a forensic psychiatrist (who diagnoses nuts).
It’s an interesting question, because what we have in this book, The Liberal
Mind5, by Lyle Rossiter, is a right-wing psychiatrist who shows persuasively that the
thought processes of the average liberal are, in fact, a mental disorder. It’s a disorder
not unlike a personality disorder. And, of course, Rossiter has dealt with personality
disorders for forty years, since criminals usually display them. So, here we have a
psychiatrist saying most liberals are nuts. And, he can prove it. What a turn of the
tables.

http://alphaaquila.org/Library/synopsis_rossiter.pdf

moldyoldy

Lyle Rossiter



Jump to: navigation, search


Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., like Michael Savage, thinks that liberalism is a mental disorder.

Unlike Savage, however, Rossiter is a psychiatrist and is actually serious when he says that. He has written a book, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, which claims to trace the psychological factors causing people to become liberals.

In a nutshell, the book's thesis is, 'My political views are so obviously correct that anyone who doesn't accept them just has to be nuts.' It presupposes the truth of a right-wing political outlook and then tries to plumb the reasons why other people do not accept this truth, the conclusion being that they have to be in massive denial. He chastises liberals for being "uncivil, overly sure of their correctness, and willfully ignorant of facts that contradict their worldview."

Joan Swirsky, a fan of the book, notes that it "avoids all the usual psychobabble."[1] We hazard that this is because the book does not contain any actual psychological science.

Kevyn

A Doctor who is so clueless and makes decisions or published opinion not as a result of overwhelming scientific knowledge but his own flawed and biased opinion, incompetence and sloth is not referred to as a nutter but as a Quack. Lile Rossiter is well known as a Quack and a hack amongst his colleagues.

buffalo Loc: Texas

So the science of psychology to be valid must be full of psychobabble--only in moonbatlandia...proof Swirsky and all other moonbats are mentally ill.

moldyoldy

At least it should reference some science.

Little Ball of Hate

It's one of the few things liberals have in their arsenal. Try to discredit the source. I'll bet Moldy and Kev haven't even read the book, let alone the article I posted. Typical liberal BS.

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.

Little Ball of Hate

Did you read the book?

grumbledog

Dr. Rossiter should just give up his license and send his degrees back. what a bunch of BS

If I start out to prove my theory is correct and only choice facts that prove it and ignore all others then I just somebody trying to sell books to people who think like me

In today world there are plenty of rig-wingers willing to buy a book that states Liberals are a mental sad state of affairs.

I guess if I published a book that proved without a doubt that President Obama was borne in Kenya and then filled it with all the false information I can find on the internet it would be a best seller ever if nothing was true

Little Ball of Hate

This book was not written for professionals. It is for the average Joe. It is the opinion of a professional, board certified doctor. So instead of attacking his credentials, why don't you try to refute what he said? That's what intelligent people do.

buffalo Loc: Texas

Psychobabble is NOT science.

Urban Dictionary-- psychobabble --The illogical stream of words that spew from the mouth of a person incapable of logical thinking or having a constructive conversation. Often experienced when breaking up with or divorcing a significant other.

Little Ball of Hate

OK. How about you try to refute what he said? Pick just one thing, and try to refute it. You can't.

eden

Perhaps it would be helpful to hit the refresh button on what being liberal really means.....

"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Whereas classical liberalism emphasizes the role of liberty, social liberalism stresses the importance of equality.[4] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, and international cooperation.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[12] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.

Prominent revolutionaries in the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. Liberalism started to spread rapidly especially after the French Revolution. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, South America, and North America.[13] In this period, the dominant ideological opponent of classical liberalism was conservatism, but liberalism later survived major ideological challenges from new opponents, such as fascism and communism. During the 20th century, liberal ideas spread even further as liberal democracies found themselves on the winning side in both world wars. In Europe and North America, the establishment of social liberalism became a key component in the expansion of the welfare state.[14][15] Today, liberal parties continue to wield power and influence throughout the world."

Setting aside the tribal, corrupt, Republican/Democrat duopoly for a moment Lyle Rossiter is a discredited partisan shill
who violates the basic tenets and professional standards of his profession. It has been suggested that some right wing organizations are piddling in his pocket which if correct establishes a new standard of desperation and little else of note.

If believing that Liberalism rejects the old social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings then I will happily lie on Dr (?) Rossiters couch.

robmull Loc: florida

Very interesting lboh. I was doing a comparison today of conservatives and secular liberal progressives, and good drivers and bad drivers; respectively. I'm a good driver and have had to earn my living on a few occasions in Taxi's and little "rice rocket," 90 to 250 cc "motor" bikes in NYC. The point I'm trying to make is that when I drive with a bad driver, the worse driver they are is the worse they think I am. Same with "right" and "left" in politics. The further "left" a communist goes, the further away the "right" looks. And it's true. The further "left" our administration goes, the father away "WE" are. It's perspective. And there's nothing a patriotic American conservative can say to a "Marx/Alinsky" secular liberal progressive commie to even make them realize they are either a bad driver or a damn communist. Just on OPP you can see the dyed in-the-wool, pro, pro, pro "BHB," a 3rd generation [that "WE" know of] communist on his mother's AND fathers side, and "WE" are "comrade," to "warm puke," [AKA cool breeze] and "3jerk," [AKA 3jack], etc.. Really bad drivers and secular liberal progressive "Marx/Alinskyites," have absolutely no handle on where THEY are, so don't expect them to have the slightest concept of where "WE" actually are. Shame, shame, shame, but to waste time trying to explain common-sense to "warm puke" or "3jerk," etc., is like expecting to have an interesting game of with a pigeon. Shame, shame, shame, but that's just the way it is!!! Hummmmmmmmmm. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO TRUMP!!!

Little Ball of Hate

Classical liberalism is not much different than modern day Conservatism. Our founding fathers were conservatives. It just had a different name back then. Modern liberals are in no way liberals, in the classical sense. They are socialists. And I'm still waiting for someone to try to refute what Rossiter said. I guess I shouldn't hold my breath.

robmull Loc: florida

True, true, true, lboh. Glenn Beck mentioned that a few months ago. A "classic" liberal is actually a conservative. Hell, if JFK were in politics today, the "BHB" crowd would refer to him as a "right wing-nut job;" and it seems the Castro brothers are just two more of the "home" boys!!! Hummmmmmmmmmm. I do have to go against Dr. Beck's choice of Ted Cruz in the current primary campaign though. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO TRUMP!!!