# Top psychiatrist concludes liberals are clinically nuts!



## john doe. (Aug 26, 2006)

WND Exclusive
Top psychiatrist concludes liberals are clinically nuts!
Makes case ideology is mental disorder
Posted: February 15, 2008
3:40 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 the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination 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."


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

I knew it all along...

That, and gun control will decrease violent crime...

If Liberals actually had to PROVE their emotionally charged opinions with factual evidence... their platform would disintegrate.


----------



## gmaske (Jan 7, 2008)

I can't think of nothin witty to say other than.....
*DUH!!!*

:watching:


----------



## Wandering Man (Jul 9, 2006)

tnoisaw said:


> "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." ...
> 
> "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,"


Just like a psychiatrist ... always blaming psychopathology on the mother.

WM


----------



## SuckLead (Jul 4, 2006)

Didn't Michael Savage say that first? :anim_lol:


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

We knew that a long time ago.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Good find tno... :smt023

:smt1099


----------



## soldierboy029 (Jan 2, 2008)

It's great to see what I aready knew being spouted by some guy with Phd attached to his name, LOL


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

JeffWard said:


> That, and gun control will decrease violent crime...


Actually, a reading of the FBI crime stats would seem to imply that belief is at least partially true, rather than insane. NYC is a _lot_ safer than Phoenix, for example.

Calling our political opponents names serves no good purpose, and is the very opposite of reasoned debate - which is where we win the argument.


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> Actually, a reading of the FBI crime stats would seem to imply that belief is at least partially true, rather than insane. NYC is a _lot_ safer than Phoenix, for example.
> 
> Calling our political opponents names serves no good purpose, and is the very opposite of reasoned debate - which is where we win the argument.


What? Nobody called them names. Just look the other way if the turth hurts. Were expected to. They call us gun-nuts and many more things everyday. Now because some one labeled them with the truth were suppose to help them out.:smt022 I don't think so.:buttkick:


----------



## Fred40 (Jan 7, 2008)

Baldy said:


> What? Nobody called them names. Just look the other way if the turth hurts. Were expected to. They call us gun-nuts and many more things everyday. Now because some one labeled them with the truth were suppose to help them out.:smt022 I don't think so.:buttkick:


Labeled them with the truth? You honestly think liberals....in general....are insane? I agree with a lot of what that therapist said. I'm sick of people not taking responsibility for their own actions. I'm sick of people thinking the Government should take care of them....and I'm against gun control............yet I find myself voting Dem more often than not lately. Look what the Republicans have done over the last 7 years......after this Bush fiasco it might be a very long time before I could go Republican again. Although.....with that being said as far as Republicans go "Maverick McCain" might not be so bad. Certainly 50 times better than Bush.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> Actually, a reading of the FBI crime stats would seem to imply that belief is at least partially true, rather than insane. NYC is a _lot_ safer than Phoenix, for example.
> 
> Calling our political opponents names serves no good purpose, and is the very opposite of reasoned debate - which is where we win the argument.


 That is when you talk about it rather than doing it, whatever it is.
Debate is clearly defined in my mind but "Reasoned" is subject to opinion. What I find to be the norm is if I continue to disagree I am considered "Unreasonable". Is that what you are saying?

Name calling accomplishes a lot. It has been known to relieve tension and serve in place of shooting.

:smt1099


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

Fred40 said:


> Labeled them with the truth? You honestly think liberals....in general....are insane? I agree with a lot of what that therapist said. I'm sick of people not taking responsibility for their own actions. I'm sick of people thinking the Government should take care of them....and I'm against gun control............yet I find myself voting Dem more often than not lately. Look what the Republicans have done over the last 7 years......after this Bush fiasco it might be a very long time before I could go Republican again. Although.....with that being said as far as Republicans go "Maverick McCain" might not be so bad. Certainly 50 times better than Bush.


If you look back in time a little you will see that the press is the one's who hijacket liberal. The left wing of the democrate started with calling themselfs progressive and then to gather more they came out with progressive liberals. Now it can go either way or both. Liberal has lost it's true meaning. By todays standard yes they are nuts. When I look at the Democrate Platforum there is no way I can vote for what they beleive in.


----------



## Fred40 (Jan 7, 2008)

Baldy said:


> If you look back in time a little you will see that the press is the one's who hijacket liberal. The left wing of the democrate started with calling themselfs progressive and then to gather more they came out with progressive liberals. Now it can go either way or both. Liberal has lost it's true meaning. By todays standard yes they are nuts. When I look at the Democrate Platforum there is no way I can vote for what they beleive in.


Yep, that is my quandary......BOTH sides go to far.....just on different topics. Pick your poison.


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

Fred40 said:


> Yep, that is my quandary......BOTH sides go to far.....just on different topics. Pick your poison.


I agree with you 100% on both sides go to far. The trouble is this country is being run by two elite classes of people that are after power to control. It's just a matter of time till they have us all herded into the coral and ready to dictate what we can do and can't. Think England. Some of the worlds greast warriors. Now can't even keep a gun in their home to protect their family. This is just one issuse of many.:smt076


----------



## john doe. (Aug 26, 2006)

Baldy said:


> I agree with you 100% on both sides go to far. The trouble is this country is being run by two elite classes of people that are after power to control. It's just a matter of time till they have us all herded into the coral and ready to dictate what we can do and can't. Think England. Some of the worlds greast warriors. Now can't even keep a gun in their home to protect their family. This is just one issuse of many.:smt076


Well said my friend. Well said.:smt1099


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

every liberal friend of mine is on some sort of med, so yeah... I've known this fact for a very, very long time.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

Well, if all liberals are insane, then anyone who is religious can also be termed insane, I guess. Believing in something you can't see, feel, hear, touch, taste, or prove exists? Must be crazy, right?

I have debated religion with a lot of people. I have debated politics with a lot of liberals. Sometimes I've won, sometimes I've lost. But I never resorted to calling my opponents "clinically insane" simply for holding beliefs that differ from my own. That's just intellectual laziness, so that arguments that don't fit one's beliefs can be dismissed without regard, and so one doesn't have to actually win a debate with reason, logic, facts and persuasion. Name-calling is a cop-out, even if some obscure psychiatrist supports it.

As much as I dislike his politics, I think Senator Obama has a pretty good handle on debate without acrimony: http://news.yahoo.com/s/weeklystandard/20080122/cm_weeklystandard/primarycolors_1.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> Well, if all liberals are insane, then anyone who is religious can also be termed insane, I guess. Believing in something you can't see, feel, hear, touch, taste, or prove exists? Must be crazy, right?
> 
> I have debated religion with a lot of people. I have debated politics with a lot of liberals. Sometimes I've won, sometimes I've lost. But I never resorted to calling my opponents "clinically insane" simply for holding beliefs that differ from my own. That's just intellectual laziness, so that arguments that don't fit one's beliefs can be dismissed without regard, and so one doesn't have to actually win a debate with reason, logic, facts and persuasion. Name-calling is a cop-out, even if some obscure psychiatrist supports it.
> 
> As much as I dislike his politics, I think Senator Obama has a pretty good handle on debate without acrimony: http://news.yahoo.com/s/weeklystandard/20080122/cm_weeklystandard/primarycolors_1.


We have somehow in this country reached the point where the one that tells the most believable lies with the most soothing voice is the "Winner".

So having lost all these debates are you telling us now you have become a Liberal Christian or given that you "Won" some are you just confused? :mrgreen:

:smt1099


----------



## Fred40 (Jan 7, 2008)

Mike Barham said:


> Well, if all liberals are insane, then anyone who is religious can also be termed insane, I guess. Believing in something you can't see, feel, hear, touch, taste, or prove exists? Must be crazy, right?


Well I personally would not call it insanity......but it is delusional. When you believe something without any physical evidence it is (at minimum) a delusion. Most people hold some if not many delusional beliefs. If you believe John Edwards can really talk to the dead. If you believe in astrology, or ghosts or UFO's are actually alien vessels........or dowsing, "real" magic or even dualism or any other number of "Supernatural" beliefs (Which includes all major religions) then you are deluded at least to some degree....IMHO.

I have no supernatural beliefs......none.


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> Well, if all liberals are insane, then anyone who is religious can also be termed insane, I guess. Believing in something you can't see, feel, hear, touch, taste, or prove exists? Must be crazy, right?
> 
> I have debated religion with a lot of people. I have debated politics with a lot of liberals. Sometimes I've won, sometimes I've lost. But I never resorted to calling my opponents "clinically insane" simply for holding beliefs that differ from my own. That's just intellectual laziness, so that arguments that don't fit one's beliefs can be dismissed without regard, and so one doesn't have to actually win a debate with reason, logic, facts and persuasion. Name-calling is a cop-out, even if some obscure psychiatrist supports it.
> 
> As much as I dislike his politics, I think Senator Obama has a pretty good handle on debate without acrimony: http://news.yahoo.com/s/weeklystandard/20080122/cm_weeklystandard/primarycolors_1.


Why are you dragging religion into this? There's a whole lot of issuses that could be brought up. Were talking about their mind set. That is power and contorl. Not all liberals are insane but some are not far from it. The ones I am talking about are the far leftwing nuts. Same thing with some of the far rightwing nut jobs. All I can say is if you can't take a punch don't get in the fight.:boxing:


----------



## babs (Nov 30, 2007)

Interesting article.. I can't help thinking, that the powers that be that want to perpetuate this figured it out long ago, so that indoctrination at a young developmental age all the way through the education years was crucial to change the national pulse to beat to the drum of their socialist-totalitarian rule.. 

Done by placating to the whining, victimized, class-hating emotions of lost souls that were never exposed to the glorious and wondrous liberties of the free market system and the rich history of this great nation, built by men and women of individual thought, ideals, values and work ethic.. 

All this great and important learning was thus lost upon the pupils, preventing the formation of well educated minds, making well-adjusted normal conservative Americans.. They have been institutionally denied.

ie, Public Education

They attack by controlling the schools, the tax system, the courts, and now it seems... This presidential election.

Hunker down boys and keep your powder dry... It's going to get ugly.


----------



## john doe. (Aug 26, 2006)

Mike Barham said:


> Well, if all liberals are insane, then anyone who is religious can also be termed insane, I guess. Believing in something you can't see, feel, hear, touch, taste, or prove exists? Must be crazy, right?
> 
> I have debated religion with a lot of people. I have debated politics with a lot of liberals. Sometimes I've won, sometimes I've lost. But I never resorted to calling my opponents "clinically insane" simply for holding beliefs that differ from my own. That's just intellectual laziness, so that arguments that don't fit one's beliefs can be dismissed without regard, and so one doesn't have to actually win a debate with reason, logic, facts and persuasion. Name-calling is a cop-out, even if some obscure psychiatrist supports it.
> 
> As much as I dislike his politics, I think Senator Obama has a pretty good handle on debate without acrimony: http://news.yahoo.com/s/weeklystandard/20080122/cm_weeklystandard/primarycolors_1.


This wasn't an article about ones opponent. If it were then I may not have posted it... may not. (probably would have anyway)

Mike,

I can feel the wind- I can smell what the wind carries to me- I can see the effects of the wind on trees- but I physically can not see the wind.

Does that mean that wind does not exist?


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

We must not realy have a heart lungs or any of the other things "they" say we have in us cause we can't see them. Damn I guess we are just empty shells. :smt022

I seem to recall stories way back in the early day's of the "Cold War" regarding un-identifiable commies in deep cover that were preparing to attack this country from within. Given that I don't remember the sources therefore can't "Drop a Name" or quote a source to validate my statement it must not be real. I however consider it to be very real and the probable source of destruction of our nation as it has existed.

:smt1099


----------



## Fred40 (Jan 7, 2008)

tnoisaw said:


> I can feel the wind- I can smell what the wind carries to me- I can see the effects of the wind on trees- but I physically can not see the wind.
> 
> Does that mean that wind does not exist?





TOF said:


> We must not realy have a heart lungs or any of the other things "they" say we have in us cause we can't see them. Damn I guess we are just empty shells. :smt022


What the hell are you guys talking about? I said physical evidence. I never said anything about being able to see it with you own eyes.

TOF - you've never seen an actual human heart or lungs? I've seen them while still in action......chest open.

tnoisaw - We don't have to actually see something with our eyes to have physical evidence of it's existence. Were you being serious?


----------



## Snowman (Jan 2, 2007)

Fred40 said:


> What the hell are you guys talking about? I said physical evidence. I never said anything about being able to see it with you own eyes.
> 
> TOF - you've never seen an actual human heart or lungs? I've seen them while still in action......chest open.
> 
> tnoisaw - We don't have to actually see something with our eyes to have physical evidence of it's existence. Were you being serious?


Look, if I presented you with evidence for Creationism, you would dismiss it anyway. The Discovery Channel networks do some really nice things with Bible history - showing how the Red (Reed?) Sea could have been parted, the cause of the Flood, etc. Indeed these are "theories" but I don't see why these theories are any more wacky than those you subscribe to.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Fred40 said:


> What the hell are you guys talking about? I said physical evidence. I never said anything about being able to see it with you own eyes.
> 
> TOF - you've never seen an actual human heart or lungs? I've seen them while still in action......chest open.
> 
> tnoisaw - We don't have to actually see something with our eyes to have physical evidence of it's existence. Were you being serious?


I am not in the medical field and have not cut myself open to check on things. Perhaps you are or did to yourself. No one else has looked inside me either I'm happy to say.

You have discounted things that others declare to be fact because you have not been provided physical evidence.

Now you say I have something within my shell that you have not seen and no other human has seen. So, using your logic several posts up, you expect me to believe that I am not just a shell?

Your own rules disallow that.

:smt1099


----------



## niadhf (Jan 20, 2008)

Baldy said:


> What? Nobody called them names. Just look the other way if the turth hurts. Were expected to. They call us gun-nuts and many more things everyday. Now because some one labeled them with the truth were suppose to help them out.:smt022 I don't think so.:buttkick:


"you call that truth, we both have truths, are mine the same as yours?"
Doesnt make the statements invalid, does imply opinion not fact
:smt033


----------



## niadhf (Jan 20, 2008)

Baldy said:


> I agree with you 100% on both sides go to far. The trouble is this country is being run by two elite classes of people that are after power to control. It's just a matter of time till they have us all herded into the coral and ready to dictate what we can do and can't. Think England. Some of the worlds greast warriors. Now can't even keep a gun in their home to protect their family. This is just one issuse of many.:smt076


yep


----------



## Liko81 (Nov 21, 2007)

Extremists of ANY type could be labeled as "insane". If your mindset is:
* extreme left (the government takes care of the people's every need),
* extreme right (the people's sole duty is to further the cause of the state),
* extreme libertarian (the best government is no government; people get along just fine by informal social contract),
* extreme religious (X is the only true God and Y is the only true prophet of that God and if you believe differently you are a stain on God's good Earth), or
* extreme single-issue (X is the only important issue facing our country and we need to fix it my way NOW), 

you are insane.

Why? Because such a mindset is monoist and thus antisocial; there is no room in your thinking for any alternate way of doing things. It's flat wrong; there are always different ways to do things, each with their champions and supporters, and refusal to ackowledge such a fact is simple rejection of reality.

Look at our political system right now; it is by its very nature a polarizing force. There's no middle ground, because a vote not cast for one or the other of the two major parties is a vote wasted, and both parties are going to exclaim that fact to anyone who'll listen. And in the current political climate, every issue in the debates is a "yes/no" question. Are you for gay marriage or against it? For or against abortion? For or against gun control? For or against nationalized healthcare? For or against the war? For or against increased government spending (well, with that one you don't get much choice; the repubs are going to keep the Patriot Act and the Dems, if they toss it, will use the money to line the pockets of healthcare companies and doctors). And here's the rub; you can't be sane and say "just let me live my life without restriction!" and have any clout. You can't be for gay marriage and against gun control and abortion; the Dems won't let you keep your guns and the Repubs won't give gays marital rights or stay out of a woman's uterus. Neither government will let you live your life without restriction, and there is no third option in a winner-take-all system.

So, the political system is on the whole insane; each side says "this is the way to live" and to disagree with both is to not have a voice. It's completely illogical. And extreme libertarianism has its own hypocrisies; the second you need government is the second you scream for it. Where was government on Black Thursday, 1929? Where was government in Birmingham in '64 when the chief of police quelled a nonviolent demonstration with dogs, fire hoses and bullwhips? Where was government at 6:00AM on 9/11? On a more personal level, where's government when my job gets outsourced to India for pennies on the dollar and I can't make the rent next month? Where's government when a co-worker runs me over with a forklift and puts me in a wheelchair, and the company lays me off without benefits because they can and I can't? Where's government when a bumper harvest drives prices for my crop to pennies on the dollar and I go bankrupt waiting for market prices to recover from the glut (a lot of crops are seasonal you know)? Those are all good reasons to have more than minimal government. "Nanny programs" like welfare, unemployment, and subsidized crop loans are there for people who cannot control catastrophic circumstances and who need help. With government aid comes government workers to manage it, and also comes system-gamers who make a living by manipulating the aid programs indefinitely. They are an unavoidable side-effect; monitoring the system to avoid manipulation is just another level of oversight.


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

babs said:


> Interesting article.. I can't help thinking, that the powers that be that want to perpetuate this figured it out long ago, so that indoctrination at a young developmental age all the way through the education years was crucial to change the national pulse to beat to the drum of their socialist-totalitarian rule..
> 
> Done by placating to the whining, victimized, class-hating emotions of lost souls that were never exposed to the glorious and wondrous liberties of the free market system and the rich history of this great nation, built by men and women of individual thought, ideals, values and work ethic..
> 
> ...


Very well thought out answer Mr Babs.:smt023 Just today I was reading where California is making mandatory classes for global warming. Al Gore must have made a big impression on the governor out there.


----------



## niadhf (Jan 20, 2008)

Baldy said:


> Very well thought out answer Mr Babs.:smt023 Just today I was reading where California is making mandatory classes for global warming. Al Gore must have made a big impression on the governor out there.


Sorta speaks (babs comment - sorry tried to quote both) to that whole "no child left behind" thing that limits teaching to a test, know actual learning of the ideas (like sya the constituion and WHY) and free thinking, huh?


----------



## babs (Nov 30, 2007)

niadhf,
Indeed.. Sometimes I think mine was the last generation that actually learned something of the constitution, bill of rights and the mechanics of the free-market system. They used the "free thinking" thing as more diabolical excuse to infuse their ex-woodstock ideals that McCarthy was right about all along and that should have been deemed subversive to the American way of life and the great Republic for which the flag stands. I cringe every time I hear someone call it a Democracy, for they always implode from fiscal irresponsibility after the hording masses discover they can vote their paws into the coffers... ie Socialism.

Baldy,
Thanks... Been learning the necessaries of my 1st degree in the Masonic Lodge the last couple weeks, so I guess it's affected my speech as of late... Oh Lord I can't stop it. hehe :mrgreen:

It doesn't surprise me about the People's Republic of Cali.... Hate Ashbury has spread to the capital of Cali and DC. Global warming is just another means of control. I say we all buy 70's V-8's... I loved the 'party barge' growing up... A 77 Olds Cutlass... 4-barrel 350, bench seats and all.. Them were the days.. and I'm only 39. :smt033


----------



## niadhf (Jan 20, 2008)

babs said:


> niadhf,
> Indeed.. Sometimes I think mine was the last generation that actually learned something of the constitution, bill of rights and the mechanics of the free-market system. They used the "free thinking" thing as more diabolical excuse to infuse their ex-woodstock ideals that McCarthy was right about all along and that should have been deemed subversive to the American way of life and the great Republic for which the flag stands. I cringe every time I hear someone call it a Democracy, for they always implode from fiscal irresponsibility after the hording masses discover they can vote their paws into the coffers... ie Socialism.


Babs,
I'm sorry. What i mean by "free thinking" is the ability to think, form INFORMED opinions, and come to REASONED conclusions, without it being spoon fed through a pre-approved (read controlled) propaganda machine.

You should see the CRAP they gave my Nephew about the constitution. Including a blurb (on ammendment 2) "some people thinks this means the individual right to bear arms, but in reality means to keep a standing army"
and yeah i am not quite 40 either


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

I brought up religion as an example. If I dismiss someone by calling them nuts for believing in a god, have I won the debate? Will my "technique" be persuasive to them or someone observing the debate? 

Anyway, regardless of what names we call our political opponents, we still have to deal with them and the legislation they propose. 

Also, we have to convince people who are on the fence that we are right. Calling our opponents names is probably not the best way to do that. The mileage of others may vary, but I want to win this debate, and I don't think childish insults are the way to win it.


----------



## john doe. (Aug 26, 2006)

Fred40 said:


> What the hell are you guys talking about? I said physical evidence. I never said anything about being able to see it with you own eyes.
> 
> TOF - you've never seen an actual human heart or lungs? I've seen them while still in action......chest open.
> 
> tnoisaw - We don't have to actually see something with our eyes to have physical evidence of it's existence. Were you being serious?


I'm very serious.

I've always been amazed of those who do not believe in God because I feel they have more faith than me. For me, my creator made everything. Black and white- no gray area. I see it in me, my wife, kids and my life: even through it's struggles and difficulties. It makes since to me. But for a nonbeliever, they have to believe that it (we and the world) happened by chance- that nothing got together with nothing and formed something. That is true faith (in what I can't tell you). If Christians had the kind of faith that a nonbeliever had the church would grow so fast that it would blow my mind.

Sounds like a good, but weird prayer to have. Dear Lord, Please help me to have the faith of a nonbeliever to be a better and stronger Christian. Amen

Personally, maybe I see things different because of my life experiences. I am a miracle- not just because I'm just here (born). I had a serious accident in 1985 in which I feel 700 feet down a mountain in Hawaii. It was Super bowl Sunday and I was lucky that a Navy Lieutenant saw me fall (I was so far down and in such a bad spot that the Army medics had to rappel out of the helicopter and evac me by flight to Tripler Army Hospital). I shattered my left femur which lead to a pulmonary embolism in my lungs.

With the severity of the embolism I had a 10% chance to live according to the doctors. My heart stopped three times and I was fully inabated with a machine doing my breathing for me 100%. I was in ICU for two weeks. A few weeks later I got a bilateral phemothorax (both lungs collapsed). I almost lost my left leg above the knee because of lack of pulse in that leg.

Other things happened on that mountain that could only be explained by the word, "miracle". Not of modern medicine because the doctors had no idea what to do next and called my mom in Arizona and told her to fly to Hawaii as soon as possible to see her son because I will probably die. I'm a miracle because God had decided to keep me around. For what purpose I'm still not total sure of besides being a husband and father.

This incident was not the start of my Christian life because that started thirteen years previously. So the, "accident" was not the reason for my strong faith.
Funny how these posts seem to led to religion.


----------



## Wandering Man (Jul 9, 2006)

tnoisaw said:


> For what purpose I'm still not total sure of _besides being a husband and father_.


Ask your wife and daughters if that isn't enough of a reason.

WM


----------



## babs (Nov 30, 2007)

niadhf said:


> Babs,
> I'm sorry. What i mean by "free thinking" is the ability to think, form INFORMED opinions, and come to REASONED conclusions, without it being spoon fed through a pre-approved (read controlled) propaganda machine.
> 
> You should see the CRAP they gave my Nephew about the constitution. Including a blurb (on ammendment 2) "some people thinks this means the individual right to bear arms, but in reality means to keep a standing army"
> and yeah i am not quite 40 either


I understood and agree with "free-thinking". Unfortunately they twist the same term to justify the crap they're spewing into our kids.

Yeah, don't ya wish the founding fathers could have left a lot less to interpretation by those that would subjugate the people by saying:

_*"The right of every individual legal American Citizen to keep and bear arms of any kind, shall not be infringed by any governing body, be it local, state or national. Nor shall any numb-nut at this time or any future period have lawful ability to exert their infinite and boundless stupidity by so much as even suggesting in public forum that the right for citizens to individually or collectively arm themselves, with any tool known to man, for personal protection or to combat tyranny be in any way, shape, form or fashion be infringed. Furthermore, any idiot who so much as proposes that there should be any government mandated control of the ability to keep and carry arms, by the individual, shall be investigated and potentially considered an enemy of the citizens of these Unites States by inciting tyrannical rule, under potential penalty of being hung for treason and sedition. However, the first amendment will provide the freedom to speak their mind, unless it is for the cause of disarming the citizens, which would potentially eliminate the right to open their big yap to begin with."*_

That's how it aughta have been written.. Can I get an Amen!!!???!??! :smt1099

Damn!! I shoulda been an attorney!


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

babs said:


> _*"The right of every individual legal American Citizen to keep and bear arms of any kind, shall not be infringed by any governing body, be it local, state or national. Nor shall any numb-nut at this time or any future period have lawful ability to exert their infinite and boundless stupidity by so much as even suggesting in public forum that the right for citizens to individually or collectively arm themselves, with any tool known to man, for personal protection or to combat tyranny be in any way, shape, form or fashion be infringed. Furthermore, any idiot who so much as proposes that there should be any government mandated control of the ability to keep and carry arms, by the individual, shall be investigated and potentially considered an enemy of the citizens of these Unites States by inciting tyrannical rule, under potential penalty of being hung for treason and sedition."*_


I am very glad it was not written like that, since the Second Amendment would then be in conflict with the First. :mrgreen:


----------



## babs (Nov 30, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> I am very glad it was not written like that, since the Second Amendment would then be in conflict with the First. :mrgreen:


I noticed that also... as you were replying I edited.. (clause added for prevision of freedom of speech with exception).
You may like it now. 

Yeah actually ... more appropriate would be not so much that speech itself but legislation that should be deemed completely and utterly unlawful to the 2nd.. So folks can always speak their minds, but if they pass legislation, that should be considered an act of tyranny maybe.

goooooood coffee this morning. ha ha hee hee ho ho.


----------



## Fred40 (Jan 7, 2008)

tnoisaw said:


> I'm very serious.
> 
> I've always been amazed of those who do not believe in God because I feel they have more faith than me. For me, my creator made everything. Black and white- no gray area. I see it in me, my wife, kids and my life: even through it's struggles and difficulties. It makes since to me. But for a nonbeliever, they have to believe that it (we and the world) happened by chance- that nothing got together with nothing and formed something. That is true faith (in what I can't tell you). If Christians had the kind of faith that a nonbeliever had the church would grow so fast that it would blow my mind.
> 
> ...


That's a good story.......really.

I don't have any particular problem with people believing in what they want .....so long as they don't push it on others and infringe upon the rights of others. I truly am happy that religion helps you and you find comfort in it. My mother is still quite religious and has even admitted to me that part of it is a fear to do otherwise. She's afraid of the implications if it's not true. She NEEDS to believe there is a purpose for all of this. (My reply BTW was "I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies"  ) She is however very tolerant of my position and even respects the strength it takes to hold such a position.

My problems lie when people try and push their beliefs onto others. Or when they try to finagle Creationism into science courses under the guise of "Intelligent Design". That's when I go off. If anyone wants to talk about creation in a "comparative religion" or "history of religion" class I have absolutely no problem with that. But what you can't do is teach it in a science class. Why? Because it's not science. It makes no testable predictions and it's not falsifiable. Those are just two of the requirements for something to be considered under the category of science.


----------

