I invite discussion on this very simple premise:
RESOLVED:: Persons who seek leadership positions constitute a group with a high risk for psychological problems and in the public interest they must be tested by more than one independent diagnostic psychologist before their name can be placed on the ballot.
Add a comment or email me at sams@bestselfusa.com
UPDATE: Most folks thought it was a good idea. Several people had concerns if it could practically work.
Here is the important part; not one person disagreed with the first premise: "Persons who seek leadership positions constitute a group with a high risk for psychological problems"
I was disappointed that none of the responders identified themselves as mental health professionals.
13 comments:
Interesting question Sam but don’t all people have psychological problems of one kind or another? Im guessing you are talking about personality disorders again which are difficult to treat. I can see your line of thinking but I would think in todays world of mass media it would become a circus of people like Oberman, Hannity and Coulter attempting to break down and exploit such results if they were made public.
If you are talking about more of a standard test thats used like a drug screening Id be interested to know what psychological problems you forsee making people unqualified.
Good topic though it beats the day by day Obama Bashing for sure.
Kael
"don’t all people have psychological problems of one kind or another?"
The premise is that persons who seek leadership positions are a special high risk group.
I regret that you didn't see my post as "Obama Bashing". Perhaps I should have been more overt.
The last election has many similar characteristics to misguided mating behavior. We have all seen those people who grasp at relationships and fall in love twice a week. Men like Obama tend to be very charming and are skillful in the art of courtship. They sweep women off their feet as the prelude to a relationship filled with attempts to dominate, suspicious jealousy, and often, exploitive and abusive behavior.
Women who are lesser lovers often make friends with nice guys and “fall in love” with the type of men described in the previous sentence (usually referred to as an unmentionable body orifice). Nice guys just aren't "romantic" enough for them.
The body politic of America has responded to adolescent mating hormones without properly vetting their suitor's character or background. Now they are being abused and exploited by the cad who courted them with such charm.
Here in Naples the clergy require pre-marital counseling to weed out such tragic matings. Had such a process been in place for the election process Obama would still be horny and single rather than screwing all of us and being an abusive spouse.
Was that overt enough?
Yeah I thought you were ready for a serious intellectual discussion there for a minute my bad.
Your analogies fit as well with Bush's election as Obamas. Leaders are rarely altruistic and always power hungry elected beholden to those who financed their election.
I think your premise is flawed though the only way I could see it making any sense is if they did a screening simaler to what they do to Police recruits.
I have a feeling thats not your angle though you feel Obama is an enemy of the state and could have been prevented had the right procedures been in place. I felt the same about Bush believe me. I wont tell you Obama is close to perfect Im just glad Palin inst a 72 year old heart beat from the presidency. A current events test rather than a psychological one would have prevented her though ;)
Kael
Please,just for me, find some rejoinder that doesn't mention Bush or Republicans. Bush, McCain, and Republicans do not represent a paradigm supported by me.
For most conservatives the Republican Party represents an unfaithful wife who has been having an adulterous relationship with an HIV positive ghetto resident. I have more negative emotional responses to "Republican" than "Democrat". I always knew the liberal Democrats were whores, no surprise. But many of us actually thought the Republicans had some virtue. It always feels worse to be be betrayed by someone you once trusted than it does to be aware of the slut you never trusted in the first place.
Im not calling you a Republican but I didnt see you making these types of posts about Bush.
Rather it was constant links to Dr.Sanitys essays on Bush derangement syndrome as if questioning him was proof of being psychologicaly unstable.
I can understand you wanting to distance yourself from Bush but I didnt see you do that much back in the day except when he wasnt being conservative enough for your taste.
So are you a Regan Conservative?
"Im not calling you a Republican but I didnt see you making these types of posts about Bush."
Of course not. Whatever Bush may have been he was not an enemy of the nation. Obama and company hate America and are deliberately destroying it.
"So are you a Regan Conservative?"
No, not really. I don't much care for the political way of defining things.
I try to let my Christainity inform my politics rather than any political leader.
"A current events test rather than a psychological one would have prevented her though ;)"
Is their an emoticon for a sneer?
That comment about Sarah took lots of nerve.
And if it were not for ignorant liberals Obama wouldn't be President.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/12/24/jay-leno-the-dumb-millennials/
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2008/12/stupid-is-as-stupid-does-important.html
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2008/12/uninformed-voted-obama-informed-voted.html
From what is happening now to our economey and our Nation I think 3 Phychological testing shoule be done for all and by 3 differnt Physicritists.
Then we will know what we are dealing with when we vote as they would have to post it on their websites so we can read them.
Marcia
Marcia
Your attitude is great, Marcia. But psychiatirst don't do diagnostic testing. That job is done by forensic psychologists, or diangnostic psychologists.
Psychiatrist are now psycho pharmacologists.
A the Hun said: "Of course not. Whatever Bush may have been he was not an enemy of the nation. Obama and company hate America and are deliberately destroying it."
I disagree in theory. There has not been an authentic, legally elected president of the US since before Kennedy...or perhaps it was Kennedy; The manufactured and manipulated "elections" have been producing puppets to the throne of the US since Johnson was elevated on Nov 22 1963. The same power structure that removed Kennedy via his overt murder (which was a loud warning to those who would follow) in broad daylight and in public is still installing people in the Oval Office for the furtherance of their plan for the globe. It is not covert any longer. People have discovered this and have been aware of it since at least 1992...when we got our first taste of the Power Elites' penchant for Marxism...thru the Clinton Socialist Party.
Kissinger told us, in no uncertain terms (amongst others) that we would have global governance, whether by consent or by conquest. This is the plan, and the front guys who get to sit in the Oval Office are only the most visible participants.
It makes no difference which party is in "power" they are all under the same directive...the different parties only have different methods, one more covert than the other....the only difference.
Look up US-TEC and find out who SOME of the puppetmasters are. David Rockefeller likes his low profile enough to put others in front of his podium. He doesn't need the money.....ha controls much of the worlds money already. It was once said "Let me control the people's money and I care not who is in office"...
Make no mistake...they are all parts of the same equasion. Dem's and Repub's are simply 2 sides of the same coin.
The smart choice is God and HIS laws...find a "government" that supports THAT choice, and I'll sign up.
Yes but who decides who God is and what his laws are?
There is some disagreement on that. The Muslims in the middle east are pretty sure they are doing what you just described. Untill god canbe proven and he makes his laws overtly clear in the present day aka doesnt ask us to trust him that people thousands of years ago knew. Then I dont think thats a real good idea.
No one wants to live under the laws of someones elses God.
Kael
Absolutely! It is insane to give the nuclear codes to a madman like BO!
Post a Comment