Liberalism really is a mental disorder!

[03_SHOOTER]

Our own HairyEyeball sent this to me a few days ago, and I anticipated him posting it, but as he hasn't I decided to go ahead and do it this evening.

My "Sig Line" is accurate, Liberalism really is a mental disorder!!

Liberals clinically mad, concludes top psychiatrist (http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494)

Eminent doctor makes case leftist ideology is a mental disorder

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 12, 2008
6:33 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "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."

While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."

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.

"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 over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces 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;
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.


"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."

[HairyEyeball]

Your tag line, only fitting that you post the medical justification.

[TheLegalShark]

Wonderful, a study with a "questionable" result and an article from a slanted source. Studies like this cannot really be taken that seriously, just because somebody wrote a book about it doesn't make it correct. It needs to be reviewed by peers and replicated in order to be considered valid.

[03_SHOOTER]

Wonderful, a study with a "questionable" result and an article from a slanted source. Studies like this cannot really be taken that seriously, just because somebody wrote a book about it doesn't make it correct. It needs to be reviewed by peers and replicated in order to be considered valid.

I just love the way you Libs consider ANY criticism to be "questionable", and unworthy of being considered "seriously", and scream for "peer-review", when it's directed at YOU, but there's no need for ANY "peer-review", it's never "questionable", and it's ALWAYS to be considered not only "seriously", but requires full blown Congressional investigations if it's directed at any conservative. Not a good indication of mental acuity or impartiality for someone who is pursuing a career at the bar.

There's an old maxim that "if you're not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart, if you're STILL a liberal when you're older, you have no BRAINS!!". You're obviously VERY young.

[HairyEyeball]

"A questionable article from a slanted source"? This wasn't found in the NY Times or a See-B.S. broadcast. It might be interesting to see your reaction the first time you leave that ivory tower and someone knocks those liberally rose-tinted glasses off.

Get over yourself, sonny - at least long enough to read the book (I'd suggest 'objectively', but that appears too much to hope for) before rejecting it on the basis of one article.

[SlightlyCatholic]

With these findings, Liberalism may find its way into the new edition of the DSM...

If the report itself is satirical, it certainly fooled me. If it's real, then I guess we need to expand our asylums.

[HairyEyeball]

Not just yet, Tim - the inmates are still running them.

[03_SHOOTER]

A follow up for our resident undergraduate liberal; You're saying that the professional opinon of a 36 year Board Certified Psychiatrist, with more "peer-review" than you'll ever see in your entire lifetime, and who has consulted in more than 2500 legal cases is "questionable"? The only thing "questionable" here is YOUR mental status. If I were you, I'd make an appointment to see him ASAP before your "mental disorder" becomes terminal!

CURRICULUM VITAE (http://www.forensicpsychiatrist.com/cv.htm)


LYLE H. ROSSITER, JR., M.D.
2580 Foxfield Rd., Suite 204
Saint Charles, IL 60174

Tel: (630) 587-5710
Fax: (630) 587-5711
Email: drrossiter@sbcglobal.net


Medical Licensure and Registration
Physician and Surgeon, 1963, Illinois #036-038694
Tax ID #36-2813490
D.E.A. Controlled Substance Registration #BR1298315

Professional Status

Diplomate in Psychiatry, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, 1972.
Diplomate in Forensic Psychiatry, American Board of Forensic Psychiatry, 1984.
Private Practice, General Adult and Forensic Psychiatry.

Forensic Psychiatric Consultant to DuPage County Circuit Court, Public Defender and State's Attorney's Offices; Cook County Public Defender's Office; Office of the State Appellate Defender Supreme Court Unit, Kane County Child Advocacy Center; private attorneys in Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Texas, California, Alabama, and Washington, D.C.. Over 2500 cases in 36 years of Consultation, Evaluation, Reports, and Testimony in Civil and Criminal Matters.


Clinical Expertise

Thirty-six years experience in assessment, diagnosis, psychodynamic formulation, developmental analysis, and individual psychotherapeutic and psychopharmacological treatment of Axis I syndromes, personality disorders, and organic brain impairment. Twenty years experience in group therapy of symptomatic, relational and personality disorders. Integrated psychoanalytic, psychodynamic, self-psychological, cognitive-behavioral, and interpersonal modalities in the diagnosis and treatment of neurotic, characterological, and psychotic disorders. Comprehensive independent psychiatric evaluation and disposition of insured disability claims. Comprehensive assessment of occupational functional competence/disability.

Forensic Expertise in Criminal Matters:

Fitness to Stand Trial: Defendant’s capacity to comprehend legal proceedings and cooperate with counsel; evaluation of effects of psychotropic medications and neuropsychiatric factors on fitness and courtroom presentation at trial and sentencing.

Criminal Competency: Mental state at time of offense for mental disease or defect impairing appreciation of wrongfulness/criminality of acts and/or capacity to conform conduct.

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors: Mental state at time of offense, provocation, mens rea, developmental trauma, relational factors, neuropsychiatric/medical disorders and brain injury factors.

Post Conviction Analysis: Scrutiny of civil rights violations; competency for Miranda warning; competency at arrest, detention, evaluation, trial, and sentencing; factors in mitigation/aggravation; medication and neuropsychiatric effects; relevance of prior evaluations.

Forensic Expertise in Civil Matters:

Medical/Psychiatric Malpractice: Standard of care in provider-patient relationship, clinical assessment, diagnosis, treatment and disposition; evaluation of injury and causation; consultation in deposition and cross-examination of opposing witnesses.

Personal Injury: Post-traumatic disorders in survivors of medical emergencies, physical injury, motor vehicle accidents, assaults, and closed head injury.

Competencies: Testamentary capacity, competency for self-care, management of personal affairs, contract, marriage, testimony, pro se court appearance, and parenting.

Civil Rights: Psychiatric damages alleged in ADA and sexual harassment claims in workplace/commercial/public environments, post-traumatic stress syndromes, functional disability, cognitive/emotional/occupational/interpersonal impairment assessment.

Child Custody and Visitation: Best interest of the child criteria, assessment of personality variables in caretaker fitness, other-state removal criteria, assessment of child development levels, attachment/relational variables.

Education:

Elementary and high school education in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, 1943 to 1954.

Bachelor's Degree in Biology (with honors), June 1958, Beloit College, Beloit, Wisconsin.

Doctor of Medicine Degree, University of Chicago School of Medicine, June 1962.

Medical-Surgical Internship, University of Chicago Hospital and Clinics, 1962-63.

Residency in Psychiatry, University of Chicago Hospital and Clinics, July 1963 through June 1966.

Associate Fellow, New York Institute for Rational Emotive Therapy, 1980.

Prior Professional Experience:

Captain, U.S. Army, Chief of Psychiatry, Department of Defense (Top Secret Security Clearance), U.S. Army Hospital, Sandia Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico, August 1966 through June 1968.

Associate Fellow and Training Supervisor, Institute of Rational Emotive Therapy, New York, 1979-89.

Consultant, Family Service Association of DuPage County, 1980-82.

Consultant, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, Aurora, Illinois Region, 1981-1983.

Consultant, Public Defender and State Attorney Offices, Kane County, Will County, Illinois.

Consultant/analyst on employee/staff morale, Central DuPage Hospital: multiple individual and group interviews, conferences, written reports to hospital administration, 1988.

Clinical Director/Advisor, Outpatient Psychiatric Services, Central DuPage Hospital, November 1994 through February 1996.

Member, Central DuPage Hospital medical staff, Department of Psychiatry, 1981-2005.

Member, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 1984 – 2006.

Member, American College of Forensic Psychiatry, 2001-2006.

Teaching Appointments

Loyola University, Department of Psychiatry, 1969 to 1971.

Madden Mental Health Center, Maywood, Illinois, 1969 to 1971.

Publications

Award, Illinois Psychiatric Society for paper, "Psychoanalysis and Learning Theory," June 1966.

"The Cause and Treatment of Depression, Part I," DCBA Brief, DuPage County Bar Association, November 1991.

"The Cause and Treatment of Depression, Part II," DCBA Brief, DuPage County Bar Association, November 1991.

Lecture Presentations

Workshop, lecture, demonstration interviews on "Cognitive Perspectives in the Treatment of Depression," presented at the Illinois Psychological Association Meetings in Chicago, December 1981.

Lecture on "Courtroom Dangerousness," delivered to judges of the Circuit Court of the 18th Judicial Circuit, DuPage County, Wheaton, Illinois, February 1985.

Continuing Medical Education lecture on "Tardive Dyskinesia and Malpractice," delivered to the Central DuPage Hospital medical staff at Winfield, Illinois, September 18, 1985.

Lecture on "Concentration, Cognition and Affect in Coaching Athletes," delivered at the Sports Performance and Rehabilitation Institute, Carol Stream, Illinois, July 16, 1981.

Continuing Medical Education lecture on "Forensic Psychiatry," delivered to the medical staff at Central DuPage Hospital, Winfield, Illinois, February 6, 1985.

Forensic psychiatric forum consultant in "Understanding the Insanity Plea or Defense," November 27 and December 4, 1983, at the invitation of Judge Carl F.J. Henninger, Chief Judge, Circuit Court of DuPage County. Simulated trial; lecture delivered on "History and Current Status of the Concept of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity."

Videotaped lecture and demonstration delivered November 5 and 12, 1987, on "Modern Cognitive Psychotherapy Evaluation and Treatment Techniques" to the Department of Psychiatry, Central DuPage nursing and psychology inpatient staff, Central DuPage Hospital, Winfield, Illinois.

Day-long lecture, videotape and interview demonstration: "An Introduction to Rational Emotive Therapy," presented to the Veteran's Administration Medical Center Psychiatry Service staff at Knoxville, Iowa, September 30, 1986.

Lectures, supervision, demonstrations on psychotherapy at the Primary Certificate Practicum, New York Institute for Rational Emotive Therapy, Chicago, October 23 to 27, 1981. Same as above, April 11 to 15, 1984.

Transcribed therapy session, Chapter 8 in Wessler & Wessler, The Principles and Practice of Rational Emotive Therapy, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1980.

Lecture Series on Principles of Evaluation, Diagnosis and Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders presented to the Behavioral Health Services Staff, Central DuPage Hospital, Winfield, Illinois, 1994; Personality Development and Psychodynamics; Psychopharmacotherapy; Relational Factors in Psychotherapy; Psychiatry and Substance Abuse; Principles of Informed Consent/Standard of Care.

Lecture on "Factors in the Assessment of Dangerousness," delivered to the MacNeal Hospital psychiatry staff at Berwyn, Illinois, October 18, 1995.

Lecture on "An Overview of Forensic Psychiatry" presented to the Central DuPage Hospital Medical Staff, May 10, 2002.

Lecture on "Suicide Risk Factors" presented to the Central DuPage Hospital Psychiatric Staff, March 3, 2004.

Lecture on "Suicide Risk Factors" presented to the American Association of Legal Nurse Consultants, April 2, 2004.

Lecture: “Adolescent Suicide Risk Factors” presented to the Central DuPage Hospital Psychiatric Staff, October 27, 2004.

[TheLegalShark]

A follow up for our resident undergraduate liberal;

First, I'm not an undergrad. I am a Juris Doctor candidate. An undergrad is someone pursuing an AA/AS or a BA/BS.


You're saying that the professional opinion of a 36 year Board Certified Psychiatrist, with more "peer-review" than you'll ever see in your entire lifetime, and who has consulted in more than 2500 legal cases is "questionable"?

More precisely I am calling the results of his study questionable. A long resume just shows that he is qualified to conduct that study and that he is a psychiatrist held in high regard. It doesn't mean that his study or his opinion are correct. The reason you want studies to be replicated and peer reviewed is to ensure that they reach the correct results. A single study is just that a single study, it has no real weight behind it until confirmed as accurate.

Now let's look at something else.

Not a good indication of mental acuity or impartiality for someone who is pursuing a career at the bar.

Unless he or she is a judge, an attorney is not required to be impartial.

The only thing "questionable" here is YOUR mental status. If I were you, I'd make an appointment to see him ASAP before your "mental disorder" becomes terminal!

I really do wonder why you have to reply with some sort of biting comment or insult whenever someone argues against your worldview or opinion.

"A questionable article from a slanted source"? This wasn't found in the NY Times or a See-B.S. broadcast.

I would say the same thing about the NYT, CBS, Fox Noise, MSNBC, etc....

[03_SHOOTER]

First, I'm not an undergrad. I am a Juris Doctor candidate. An undergrad is someone pursuing an AA/AS or a BA/BS.

Then sir, I suggest that there is no excuse for your abysmal comprehension of the article, or blatant attack against the author of the specifics contained therein, especially given that you have no particular training or experience in his area of expertise.

More precisely I am calling the results of his study questionable. A long resume just shows that he is qualified to conduct that study and that he is a psychiatrist held in high regard. It doesn't mean that his study or his opinion are correct. The reason you want studies to be replicated and peer reviewed is to ensure that they reach the correct results. A single study is just that a single study, it has no real weight behind it until confirmed as accurate.

The fact of his education and 36 years of experience in and of itself gives weight to his determinations, an education and experience that you lack, and lacking that education and experience, your "objections" are akin to the age old liberal canard of "liar, liar, pants on fire".

Now let's look at something else.

Unless he or she is a judge, an attorney is not required to be impartial.

Really? I was under the impression that impartiality was considered to be one of the hallmarks of intelligence in all rational human beings. Are you precluding yourself from that group?

I really do wonder why you have to reply with some sort of biting comment or insult whenever someone argues against your worldview or opinion.

Perhaps if you were to actually offer a proper rebuttal to the subject at hand rather than simply regurgitating the same tired rhetoric of the loony left, I could be persuaded to render some consideration to your "opinions". To date however you have consistently failed to demonstrate any familiarity with the forms or rules of debate at all, much less any comprehension of the subject material, and as such I am left with no choice but to relegate you to the "Moron.org", "DailyKooks", and "Huffingbiotch Post" crowd.

I would say the same thing about the NYT, CBS, Fox Noise, MSNBC, etc....

When all else fails, attack the source, and when called on it, feign indignation, and profess neutrality (when you have demonstrated no propensity for neutrality) as a Red Herring tactic.

[HairyEyeball]

Per our resident legal beagle:

The reason you want studies to be replicated and peer reviewed is to ensure that they reach the correct results. A single study is just that a single study, it has no real weight behind it until confirmed as accurate.

True enough, but this isn't a replicable physics or chemical experiment - this is a series of observations of disparate individuals with a common aberration. One need not be a degreed professional to observe the 'nanny state' mentality at work, the abdication of personal responsibility, and the obliviousness to the inherent contradiction to, as the good doctor pointed out, the very underpinnings of the republic. Given the number of cases he bases his conclusions on, there appears to be enough 'replicability' to give a fair amount of credence to them. Your arrogant dismissal of those observations as 'questionable' has all the impact of a mousephart in a blizzard.

[Woody]

Conservatism has been defined as a neuroses charactrised by
"Fear and aggresion dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity"

Labelling your political opponents mentally ill is a tactic beloved of tyrants
Wonder what treatment the good doctor proposes ?
Detention and large doses of largactil ?

[HairyEyeball]

Timmy, Timmy, not to ridicule your petulance - yeah, OK, to riducule it - the article beginning this thread quoted a study published by a qualified professional with no dog in the fight. Just how do you 'think' making up a (barely literate but) ostentatious 'quote' of your own and adding a platitude contributes to the discussion?

You could have also added the 'common knowledge' that for decades, communist dictators labeled 'enemies of the state' insane, and confined them to mental hospitals/political prisons and still overlooked the 'minor' point that both the doctor and his observations were non-political, nor have they yet been used as a political tool.

Oh, and your lack of comprehension of political conservatism is also glaringly obvious.

[03_SHOOTER]

Conservatism has been defined as a neuroses charactrised by
"Fear and aggresion dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity"

Pursuant to Rule 1a of the Political Forum, I am challenging your statement, and requiring you to cite your source in support of your claim.

Labelling your political opponents mentally ill is a tactic beloved of tyrants
Wonder what treatment the good doctor proposes ?
Detention and large doses of largactil ?

While the observation may have been made by others in the past with various nefarious goals, the author of the book in question has no ties to the political "halls of power", and therefore no viable means of imposing his findings on anyone, which relegates your statement to the level of total irrelevancy.

[Woody]

The quote comes from a study paid for by your taxpayers .Funds from National Science foundation &National Institue of health .
Authors Jack Glar & Arie Krylemski both proffesors .

Article about it in psychology today 2003 .

Studies called Poltical conservatism as motivated Social Cognition .

Do you really reckon Dr Rossieter has no dog in the fight ? Does he want to cure America or just sell books to those who are feeling upset that Obama won? The above study is biased as no doubt the book is .Both are junk science starting out with a biased defination and going from there.

[03_SHOOTER]

The quote comes from a study paid for by your taxpayers .Funds from National Science foundation &National Institue of health .
Authors Jack Glar & Arie Krylemski both proffesors .

Article about it in psychology today 2003 .

Studies called Poltical conservatism as motivated Social Cognition .

Sorry tim, but that's NOT a "proper" cite. Year, Month, Exact Title of the Article, Author(s) and if possible, the URL to an online copy so that we can evaluate the article ourselves.

Do you really reckon Dr Rossieter has no dog in the fight ? Does he want to cure America or just sell books to those who are feeling upset that Obama won? The above study is biased as no doubt the book is .Both are junk science starting out with a biased defination and going from there.

You are merely proving your OWN bias, and lack of intellectual honesty, by claiming bias on his part without first even reading the book! Also, the fact that you would trumpet your, to this point uncited "source", when it makes their alleged claims about conservatism, and decry this one about liberals, is clearly indicative of someone who has made up their mind, and no amount of facts to the contraray will have any effect on that preconceived, and highly prejudicial stance.

EDIT: HERE (http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~hannahk/bulletin.pdf) is the article you referenced, and if you'd have actually bothered to read it, rather than simply skimming it, and "cherry picking" completely out of context statements, you'd have realized that your assertion is totally baseless.

[PhilK]

Sorry tim, but that's NOT a "proper" cite. Year, Month, Exact Title of the Article, Author(s) and if possible, the URL to an online copy so that we can evaluate the article ourselves.


Here ya go:

http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~hannahk/bulletin.pdf

[03_SHOOTER]

Here ya go:

http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~hannahk/bulletin.pdf

Thanks Phil, it looks like we were posting it at the same time. It would also appear that finding an obscure article from 5 years ago wasn't all that difficult after all, but timmy was simply too lazy to do his own work, probably for fear that it would be revealed that his statement would not be borne out by the article he (very selectively) quoted.

[PhilK]

While the both items have merits, looking at the title alone of the book I see it as a cheap marketing ploy.

If you want me to think that any one political phylosophy is a "mental illness" then just present your case and let me draw my own conclusion.

The simple fact that a title like: "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." makes me question the motive and the results.

Shallow? You could argue that.

Maybe I have just been around too many people who want me to think a certain way before I hear (or read) all the facts. I am not swayed that easily.

[03_SHOOTER]

While the both items have merits, looking at the title alone of the book I see it as a cheap marketing ploy.

If you want me to think that any one political phylosophy is a "mental illness" then just present your case and let me draw my own conclusion.

The simple fact that a title like: "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." makes me question the motive and the results.

Shallow? You could argue that.

Maybe I have just been around too many people who want me to think a certain way before I hear (or read) all the facts. I am not swayed that easily.

I understand your concern Phil, but given our modern "sound-bite" society whose attention span can be measured not in hours, or even minutes, but in nano-seconds, if you're actually going to get anyone to read something more mentally taxing than Garfield, you have to reach out there and grab their attention right away.

The other thing to consider is that the author isn't addressing the regular, every day "liberal", but rather the extreme left-wing "bomb throwing" radicals, who spend their time on the DailyKooks, Moron.org, and similar sites regurgitating the same liberal mantra back and forth at each other, mantra btw that has absolutely no basis in fact. Don't believe me, just head on over to Huffingbiotch and take a look at all of the morons who have already turned on Obama, when they're the ones who got him elected in the first place, and he hasn't even been sworn into office yet!

[PhilK]

I understand your concern Phil, but given our modern "sound-bite" society whose attention span can be measured not in hours, or even minutes, but in nano-seconds, if you're actually going to get anyone to read something more mentally taxing than Garfield, you have to reach out there and grab their attention right away.

And I understand that, but I think it is pretty telling about what group of people he is selling his book to. I am all for a person making a buck, he just shouldn't expect to get one of mine.

The other thing to consider is that the author isn't addressing the regular, every day "liberal", but rather the extreme left-wing "bomb throwing" radicals, who spend their time on the DailyKooks, Moron.org, and similar sites regurgitating the same liberal mantra back and forth at each other, mantra btw that has absolutely no basis in fact. Don't believe me, just head on over to Huffingbiotch and take a look at all of the morons who have already turned on Obama, when they're the ones who got him elected in the first place, and he hasn't even been sworn into office yet!

If that is the case, then he needed to say that in his title. If I am browsing the book shelves at Barnes and Nobles and I see this book on the shelf I would keep looking. I would define it as "pop" psycology and rank it up there with all the other books by talking heads you can buy at the store.

If I read a title "Psycological profiles of extreme political phylosophies" then I might just check it out.

Like I said, it might be shallow, but when it comes to political phylosophy I don't have time to listen to extreme rhetoric. (That goes for both the left and the right.)

[03_SHOOTER]

And I understand that, but I think it is pretty telling about what group of people he is selling his book to. I am all for a person making a buck, he just shouldn't expect to get one of mine.

I find that to be interesting Phil. He's obviously written the book directed to a specific demographic, just as all books are, but just because it was doesn't preclude the possibility that someone from the other side of the coin might not learn something as well. I've made it no secret here (or anywhere else for that matter) that I'm a "strict constructionist" in the Anti-Federalist mode, but that doesn't mean that I don't read Hamilton, or for that matter even the modern equivelents. Don't forget your Sun Tzu, "if you know your enemy, and you know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles".

[PhilK]

Don't forget your Sun Tzu, "if you know your enemy, and you know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles".

I guess that is why I imerse myself in enemy doctrine and CALL (Center for Army Lessons Learned) reports. I want to know my enemies next move before they make it or recognize when I have an opportunity to strike.

The problem is that when you start diving into the political arena, both extreme sides use the same playbook...they just change the words.

If you havn't learned it yet, it will become obvious the more I post...I am the worlds biggest cynic when it comes to political phylosophy and the current politcal climate. The other day, some one asked me what I thought about Senator Obama being elected, and I said "Doesn't really matter what I think, everything will change in 4 to 8 years anyway." Needless to say, I don't think it was the answer they were looking for.

Sorry for derailing the thread.