CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Top shrink: Leftists are mentally ill
Just when liberal-leftists thought it was finally "their time" to lead center-right America, kicking and screaming, into a stifling socialist "utopia," a veteran psychiatrist is making a powerful case that the "hope-and-change" ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.
For more than 40 years, Rossiter has diagnosed and treated over 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases, both state and federal, as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist retained by numerous public offices, courts and private attorneys. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.
Rossiter explains with great clarity why the kind of liberalism being displayed by Barack Obama can only be understood as a psychological disorder.
"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Rossiter. "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."
"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 overregulates and overtaxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character andreduces 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;
If you look at when the idea of Socialism came about, it happened among intellectuals who consumed opium, absinthe, and yes alcohol (which is why some countries ban alco sales on election day), this in turn enlightened them, or "turned them on" to this new idea, since it was different from the current political systems in europe of feudalism & monarchies, while not going as far as trusting the population to a democracy.
Karl Marx was an atheist of Jewish origin, so was outside the mainstream Christian population, so in that sense how it developed wasn't all wrong (alternative to primitive capitalism by heredity), but today, in it's fridge element form, it probably is a mental illness. Maybe that part of the brain which rationalizes things is damaged somewhat by drug use, or they had a bad childhood and can't trust anyone (democracy) which may also help explain conspiracy theories.
"The roots of liberalism - and its associated madness - can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "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."
I think there are many liberals who need a liberal dose of reason and maturity. (I am not excluding members of other parties.) Furthermore, I think that as the aging liberal and conservative electorates near death, they are being replaced by younger and dumber members. And as this process continues we shall bare witness to an ever-increasing promotion of stupidity and mental illness that is manifested in both the Congress and the White House of the United States.
Liberals today are much better than the greedy and corrupted Conservatives of the Bush Administration. In those eight years, America lost its budget surplus and its standing as a respectful nation due to the Conservatives "mental illness" in attacking innocent countries and laissez-faire market place. Today, Liberals are trying to restore America in the eyes of the World as a humble and peace-oriented nation that will help those in need, not simply out of lust for money.
You can say what ever your delusional mind conjures up, but we have a a board-certified clinical psychiatrist, who received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago, on our side. You've got nothing ;)
As you whine about imaginary victims, rage against imaginary villains and seek above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of your liberal mind becomes painfully obvious. ;)
gee if i was a horrible ..i mean a horrible person then id' gather a few people and show you the dif between imaginary and reality...but im not a horrible person ...sorry if you dont understand what im saying...I dont talk sheep,but i will try.BAAA BAA BAAA BAA...im sorry there is no way to translate this, so i dont know if i said it right but i guess sheperds will help the sheep to understand,seeing you all follow suit,but is the sheperd really herding his sheep to greener fields or is he just confining them to graze in his own paddock?.............................:)notice no wink.
I already told you once before that im not on either or any political catgory.I MERELY EXIST.I am simply a human being being human. baaa baaaaa baaa(i dont know what that means either) dilligaf...(this means, does it look like i give a fuk)
There's a pretty simple answer to this that doesn't even involve a detailed rebuttal.
If there's an ounce of credibility to Rossiter's claims, why did he choose not to subject his book to the rigors of peer review before it was published? If any part of this book is objectively credible, why isn't it being submitted to any medical journals?
Simple answer: it's nonsensical partisan garbage. It may be entertaining in the political sphere, but medically, it's laughable.
Yes, yes, that's nice and all. Detroit sucks. The American car business is in the crapper for a lot of reasons, unions not being the least of those. But how does that have anything to do with the questions I asked you? The guy in that video was a lot of things, but he certainly wasn't a medical professional, nor did he even claim to be.
I didn't address the post? Did you even watch the video or did you just skimmed through it?
The liberals took lots of money to build an ideal city for the citizens and they ended up with a ghetto. Then, instead of recognizing the fact that their policies don't work, they wanted to throw more money at the program and expand it. Does that make sense to you?
Of course I watched it. As I stated, I don't think the video was wholly without merit. Unions have crippled American car companies' ability to compete, and since the backbone of Detroit is the auto industry, Detroit suffered incredibly. And since one of the biggest cogs in the US economy is the auto industry, this also resulted in handouts to prop up Detroit.
However, surely you can't argue that there wasn't more partisan garbage in the video as well, and simply put,
(partisan garbage) + (partisan garbage) = [multiple] x (partisan garbage)
To wit, I know UAW workers personally who are massively conservative, and have contributed money to conservative candidates and causes, which is a direct takedown of one of the crucial points of the argument (one which, I'll add, absolutely no source was given).
Not to mention, if one is going to say that "liberal" policies are the primary cause of the squalor in Detroit, a responsible journalistic endeavour would have been to ask why "liberal" policies in , say, Norway have resulted in one of the most consistently recognized best places to live.
But none of that is the point. The point is, you created an argument almost solely based on Dr. Rossiter's laurels as a psychiatrist holding up his supposedly revolutionary finding, and now for the third time, I've asked why such a supposedly revolutionary finding by a "top psychiatrist" is not being subjected to the scientific method.
There are two extremely easy ways to address this: 1) Produce a part of his book which he has submitted for legitimate peer review, or 2) Produce an excerpt from a medical journal in which any of Rossiter's assertions are independently verified by anyone else with a "Dr." in front of their name and not named Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin. Easy enough, right?
OK, let me get your bold lettered question out of the way. I don't care about Dr. Rossiter's findings. That was just fodder to get people fired up enough to start the discussion that I really care about. Namely that:
Either the American implementation of "liberal" policies does not work or Norway has a better class of people that are capable of making the best of "free" money. Either way:
It is insanity to continue trying to apply policies that are proven not to work (either because the policy needs tweeking or because you're dealing with a different type of people).
The point I got out of the video was that American Liberal Policies enabled workers to say, "Screw it, the union will take care of us regardless and if things go wrong, the government will bail us out."
"Screw it, the union will take care of us regardless and if things go wrong, the government will bail us out."
I actually agree with you there, however I think it speaks more to the runaway power of unions than it does about any specific political ideology. Unions are too strong, and have been for a long time.
But if you mean to make a blanket statement that "[liberal] policies...are proven not to work" as a whole (which really seems to be the point of this debate), then I think you're off base. Socialized health care certainly "works" in many countries. Not many people would argue that the Civil Rights Act, signed by the demon from your video (LBJ) wasn't an important step forward as a whole in our nation's history or that equality isn't an important American ideal. Government farming subsidies certainly circumvent anything that most conservatives would call "free market", but they are a significant contribution to our quality of life. And there are plenty of other things that reasonable people can disagree on, but that discussion should happen without one side being regarded as mentally ill.
And that goes double if you're going to use the "better class of people" argument. If you're going to argue that liberalism can work in some places but not in others, it becomes necessary to ask why conservatism works in Texas (or pick your conservative utopia, I'm actually curious as to what that might be), and not in Iran. Then it becomes necessary to ask how one identifies a population geared for liberal policies versus one geared for conservative ones. But the interesting part (at least to me) is that with that philosophy, how do you tell what policies are fundamentally right and what policies are fundamentally wrong?
Yes, unions are strong. But even so, how often do you hear about people getting off of welfare and becoming productive members of society? Those government programs are not set up to help people get off of welfare. That's the problem.
For the most part, welfare is a transient program. Recipients don't remain on the program forever. Fewer than 20 percent of all people on welfare remain on the program for less than seven months. Another 20 percent are on welfare for one to two years. Still, 27 percent remain on welfare for two to five years. Of all welfare recipients, 20 percent remain on welfare more than five years. (link below)
Of course you'll have people that are either in such a dire situation that it becomes permanent...or, maybe they're taking advantage of the system, who knows. The statistics seem to indicate that this is the exception rather than the rule however, and hardly seems indicative of a government that's enabling an entire population of freeloaders.
So, I guess to directly answer the question, 80 percent of the time, welfare recipients go on to be "productive members of society" (or at least off welfare).
OK, so here is what I'm hearing. 20% of welfare receipients on welfare for life doesn't amount to much. Hmmm, how about we just put in a provision that says, no one will receive welfare for life. After X amount of time, or Y amount of money, you're cut off. We also need to state that you cannot keep on getting off and on of welfare for more than z times.
welfare for life?.................whos getting welfare for life? Oh so thats what mum meant when she said get some of her money back , when she told me to go on the dole for a few months. Who the hell should be entitled to welfare for life ? As far as i am concerned , no-one! Everybody should be contributing to their own life. A little bit of help is ok , but im not just anyones mum , why should i have to provide welfare for an individual for life? Sure there are people who cant work , fair enough , but the majority on welfare can , so ought to as you say , be limited to z amount of times you can receieve assistance , and this should be y amount of money for x amount of time...Except of course in cases of proven emergency or times of disaster , perhaps their ought to be a seperate relief package. BUT again with your xyz as a rule.
No, your question was "how often do you hear about people getting off welfare?". The answer is: 80 percent of the time within 5 years. I'd say that's pretty significant, and again, hardly amounts to an entire welfare state, which is all I said to begin with.
This guy makes some interesting points. As an aspiring clinical psychologist myself, I can see where he's coming from, and I think it's very amusing, but unfortunately inaccurate.
The crux of his argument seems to be that liberal policies are based on irrational beliefs. This may be true, but it needs showing rather than just telling. Of course Liberal policies are going to look irrational to a conservative, just as the reverse also holds true.
Liberals and Conservatives hold to different worldviews, political philosophies, and moral codes. I think this psychiatrist needs to put some effort into showing why Liberal values are objectively irrational.
Well..., here's an example of liberalism policies that were implemented and after seeing the results, they wanted to extend the program. Now..., you tell me, if that's not delusional, I don't know what is.
