A Reality Check On ‘Change’

Hey obamamohammeds...got some good news...it's not ya'lls fault....you are all victims.....it's a sickness....

Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder
As a clinical and forensic psychiatrist, Lyle Rossiter has treated over 1,500 patients and examined over 2,700 civil and criminal cases. Turning his hand to political psychopathology, the author of The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, has diagnosed an alarming percentage of the population as suffering from the grotesque form of mental derangement known by some as moonbattery.

Among Rossiter's observations:

Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded. 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. 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.
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. 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.
Basically liberalism is a willful failure to mature beyond adolescence that can have catastrophic consequences for society. With luck, the official diagnosis of this disease by a mental health professional will facilitate the search for a cure.

NOBAMA!!!

As an independent, I admit, you Jonathan sound like biased, sore left-wing looser. Coming from the former Union, I could never imagine that in the United States of America I would ever see anything like what MSM is doing right now. The sad part is, for as much as I want to vote Democratic, I don't see myself doing this for as long as Pelosi-Reid-Dean-Obama lead this party in the way I escaped 19 years ago. The promisses of these so called leaders are not worth the paper they are written on. Their ideas and ideals like minimum wage, affirmative action, etc. though sound good, in reality hurt exactly the constituency the Democrats claim they are committed to help. Only biased or uneducated (mind that diploma does not equal education, education, does not equal intelligence, etc.) believe their complete and utter lies. Democrats will continue loosing until they'll get their act together. throw out their current (non)leadership and chose candidates worth being elected. Until then, I have no choice but vote Republican. Sorry ... as the song goes, "no time for loosers."

Posted By: BFid @ 09/14/2008 7:28:54 PM
Comment: I love the "open mind" of liberals. If McCain is a clone of Bush because he is a Republican than Obama must be Jimmy Carter. McCain has done far more bipartisan work than Obama, who voted with his party 97% of the time. For God's sake McCain was endorsed by Lieberman, the vice presidental choice of the Super Lib Al Gore. I'll cry my eyes out when Obama cuts the defense budget and we are once again preyed upon by the vultures of the world.

-------------------------

Then you're saying you think Obama will be President? Wow! Thanks for the endorsement!

Another hack for Obama. So when are you peeing your pants Mr. Alter? I guess it is obvious that MSM in the States are full of blow hard liberal who are too in love with Obama in spite of his flawed character and very slim political achievement. I'm an asian and I don't subscribed to MSM's "praise release" journalism in favor Obama. He is the least qualified presidential candidate in the most recent time. MSM is letting us believe that Obama is qualified to run America. Sorry, I'm not buying your lies. Obama won't even be considered to run as a small town mayor in my country with his unimpressive qualification. So Oprah and your do nothing and think nothing crowd, be ready to sulk on the fifth of November. Go John! Go Sarah!

Why does everyone insist Obama had to have gone against his party? Does he need to vote pro-Life or something that he doesn't believe in to show you he's a maverick? My understand of his Change message is Change from a failed Bush-McCain policy to a Democrat policy. Just cause McCain thinks change means being a maverick doesn't mean Obama has to fit that definition. And if you recall - Obama wasn't the insider Democrat choice - Hillary was. Isn't that bucking your party even by the McTool definition?

Jonathon,
I agree that the latest round of McCain attack ads are ridiculous and that the McCain camp has tried to stretch the truth on Palin (proximity to Russia equals foreign policy experience?). Further, it is completely off-base to belittle Obama for his Community Organizer experience. However, I think that you are too quick to dismiss the work that McCain has done in the Senate. He has taken Bush and the Republican Party on in McCain-Feingold [2002] (counter-Republican election finance reform), McCain-Lieberman [2003] (counter-Bush climate change act), and McCain-Kennedy [2005] (counter-Republican immigration reform, of which Obama was a sponsor). These are touch point issues for both parties. Note that I am not bringing up any bills from ancient history... these were all post-2000 (despite the convenient invention that McCain somehow has toed the party line since 2000).

Why give Obama a pass for his time spent in the Senate? If he is the change agent that he purports to be, he could have taken on at least one major issue in the last 4 years... at odds with his party. As it is, he has voted with his party 97% of the time and taken on only issues in which there is broad agreement across the parties (Obama-Coburn, the Federal Funding Transparency Act, passed unanimously in the Senate). To use an Olympics analogy, McCain attempted 3 acts difficulty levels ranging from "9-10" while Obama chose an act with a difficulty level of "1."

We can go back to Obama's experience in Illinois... his biggest accomplishment was that important piece of legislation monitoring racial profiling and mandating videotaping of interrogations. That bill hardly challenged Democratic orthodoxy and passed the Illinois Senate unanimously. I respect the fact that he worked hard to achieve unanimous support, but I assure you, if he is to undertake health care reform, tax reform, energy reform, or climate change action, the legislation he proposes will not be unanimously rubber-stamped. Who is more likely to effect change on these issues, a Republican Maverick who now represents the head of his party, or a Democratic President who, thus far, has walked the party line on almost every issue?

Bill Clinton was able to attain many legislative successes not merely through dialogue, but by taking centrist positions (e.g., Welfare Reform). For Obama to achieve his plans, he will need to steamroll Republicans. Respect them. Talk to them. But steamroll them. Based on the track record, McCain is the reformer who is more likely to achieve some change and maintain a semblance of unity as he does it. It is true; he will absolutely have critics in his own party as well as from the Left. This is nothing new to him. But if your charge is that McCain a) has not attempted reform, or b) has not succeeded in reform, then I would argue that while he does not have a perfect record at achieving reform, he scores better than Obama on both these counts.

-Carter Mayfield

"Why else take a job for a fraction of what he could have made elsewhere? "
I guess community organizig has been pretty good to this "martyr for the people". At least that is what I think as I marvel at his $1,650,000 mansion on my way to work. Where can I get one of those community organizing positions?

"Dreams from my Father" my foot!!! This guy had the most disfunctional upbringing in the world. The effect on his psyche is appearant. His drive is not about help anyone but himself and maybe proving himself to his dead father. There is a pent up anger under that calm facade, which makes him reckless and spiteful when he gets angy. Not good for a widely untested politician who wants to lead a nation. I grant you that he is great at making up stories. The whole "story" of his life has been a means to an end, not public service.

That newsweek would find favor with Obama and fault with McCain is not at all surprising. It would be surprising if the reverse were true. If Obama should win this election there surely will be change. It will be a march to socialism which newsweek will cheer at every opportunity. This is the change M$M wants and is trying to make happen.

McCAIN HAS BEEN RUNNING ON CHANGE FOR 30 YRS.. HE HAS GONE ACROSS PARTY LINES TO GET THINGS DONE (IE;CHANGE!) HE HAS WAITED A LONG TIME TO HAVE THIS CHANCE TO MAKE REAL CHANGE IN WASHINGTON! IF ELECTED HE WILL HAVE A CABINET OF DEMOCRATS AND INDEPENDANTS AND REPUBLICANS THAT HE HAS WORKED WITH OVER THE LAST 30 YRS! HE KNOWS THOSE IN WASHINGTON THAT WANT CHANGE BUT WERE TO AFRAID TO SPEAK UP FOR FEAR OF THIER PARTIES REPRISAL.. SO THOSE FOLKS WILL BE APPOINTED TO HIS CABINET ! NOW A QUESTION FOR YOU WHO WILL OBAMA PUT IN HIS CABINET ? WHO HAS HE WORKED WITH IN HIS SHORT TIME AS A U.S. SENATOR? AND WHO DOES HE KNOW IN WASHINGTON THAT WANTS REAL CHANGE ( NOT THE LIBERAL VERSION OF IT ) WHO ? IF YOU WANT A NSWER TO THIS YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS (1) GO TO MOVE ON .ORG AND SEE WHO IS PAYING HS WAY INTO THE WHITE HOUSE ! OR (2) LOOK AT THE COMPANY HE HAS KEPT FOR THE LAST 20YRS ! THAT???S WHO HE WILL APPOINT TO HIS CABINET MAYBE NOT THOSE FOLKS .. BUT ONES EXACTLY LIKE THEM !

Are you speaking of Commrade Obama's disdain for the second amendment?
BTW since we've had a Democratic congress recently and Obama votes with the party 97% what kind of change do you believe the Messiah will bring?
Nate, your talking crazy lib now. Obama is the lobby king! His carreer was a creation of master lobbiest/convicted felon Tony Rezko. Obama has done nothing, not one noteable thing in his SHORT tenure. His sole qualification for running for president is that he has been running for president. Someone mentioned sheep? Wouldn't that mean blindly following an inexperienced and unproven candidate? Name one of Obama's mentors who was not a scumbag.

I remember that Harry Truman had quite a temper and Lyndon Johnson's was legendary. It's o.k. to get mad but it is not o.k. to not get over it quickly and not apolozise. McCain seems very real. Obama constrained to the point where he seems tied up in knots at times.
McCains judgement as in the recent Russian invasion of Georgia was immediate and correct in line with our allies. Obama took three days and he finally, at the last change agreed with McCain. Being President is about experience and judgement in


making important decisions.

this is not the time for a president who needs on the job trainning with no real track record.

URGENT REQUEST!!!

Please advise the Obama campaign to do the following:

1. Publicly (and dramatically) challenge McCain to a truce on slime advertising. All Obama needs to do is publicly say he will pull his ads starting on day x as long as McCain does the same. No prior ads need to be relitigated. No previous score needs to be kept. Just a clean slate moving forward.

2. Obama will agree to immediately select (with McCain)an independant 3rd party to approve all ads for the remainder of the campaign. These ads can advocate only each candidate's plans and positions but cannot make false claims. They may not mention the opposing candidate in their ads. (the rules need to be specifically simple with no wiggle room to bend them).

3. Obama will claim (rightfully) that if we as leaders are approving these ads, than it is our responsibility to jointly step up and stop them in the interest of an actual nationwide debate on the issues in the remaining days of this election.

By issuing this challenge now - No matter the outcome, he grabs the spotlight from Palin and shines it right on McCain (and Schmidt). It will change the trajectory of this election which needs to be done - Perhaps Obama can make this challenge the centerpiece of a new national dialogue speech.

Outcome -

McCain - being the slime addict that he has turned into - will decline this challenge and be forever known as the slimeball who wouldn't help lead this nation to a national dialogue on issues.

Obama will have exposed McCain as someone basing his campaign on lies, pigs & lipstick, etc. and afraid to elevate the debate based on issues alone.

You can't blame him - they picked a shiny object with no qualifications as a running mate to distract the low-info voters. (Country First my ass).

Anyhow -

The Repubs will continue to disgrace this nation if we don't publicly call McCain out on his lies and challenge him to step up.

No extra charge for this advice.

The Repubs don't think we're stupid - They know we are.

LET'S GO DEMS