Unless someone else besides you wrote the following:

What’s that? More of Lucy’s $.25 psychiatry?

You got all snarky.

I said it “contributed to Goldwater’s loss” Perhaps you don’t understand the difference betweent “blame the loss on” and “contributed to Goldwater’s loss”? (Yep, that was snarky)

Then it was the FACT magazime survey that ‘contributed to Goldwaters’ loss’, not the APA.

Thanks for demonstrating what denial looks like, when you pretend that even the most grandiose of schemes can’t have unintended consequences.

You’re the expert here on grandiosity, I’ll grand you that, Frank.

I can totally see how:

Will Socialism Benefit the English People? Verbatim Report of a Debate Between H.M. Hyndman and Charles Bradlaugh, held at St. James’ Hall on April 17th, 1884, Professor Beesly in the Chair (London: Freethought Pub. Co., 1884), by H. M. Hyndman and Charles Bradlaugh

Proves your point definitively, Frank.

I got all snarky?

To blame the loss of the 1964 election on FACT’s survey

I said it “contributed to Goldwater’s loss” Perhaps you don’t understand the difference betweent “blame the loss on” and “contributed to Goldwater’s loss”? (Yep, that was snarky)

Because government-run health care leads inevitably to Communism that will socialize your Fascism.

If that is what you believe…

Of course, there is no reason to believe that Britain’s government has moved that whole country to the left; there is no reason to believe that its people have become more dependent on government, right? But, then again …

Thanks for demonstrating what denial looks like, when you pretend that even the most grandiose of schemes can’t have unintended consequences.
But, wait, we started with the notion that all conservatives are nuts, didn’t we? You’d have to be an idiot to believe that, anyway.

Actually, it was because of the magazine FACT, which sent out the survey and published the results. We’re talking about a magazine that didn’t have the readership of LIFE, Reader’s Digest, Newsweek, Time, etc.

Edited by Ralph Ginzburg and Warren Boroson, the magazine was notable for having been sued by Barry Goldwater over a 1964 issue entitled “The Unconscious of a Conservative: A special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater.” A federal jury awarded Goldwater $1 in compensatory damages (indicating his reputation had not really been harmed) and $75,000 in punitive damages, to punish Ginzburg and the magazine for being reckless. The United States Court of Appeals affirmed the award and the Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari (review), Justices Black and Douglas joining a dissenting opinion, rather unusual at the time (1970) on orders denying “cert.”

Link

To blame the loss of the 1964 election on FACT’s survey is to ignore the other factors like that fine book A Choice, not an Echo by Phyllis Schlafly, now found in most thrift stores around the country, and the fact that Goldwater wanted to take America back to the 1920s or earlier, which most of the voting population disagreed with at the time.

What’s that? More of Lucy’s $.25 psychiatry?

I made a few observations, that you get all snarky about it tells us all we need to know about your (low) level of maturity and how you feel compelled to demonstrate it despite(or because of a lack) your better judgment.

I am reminded of the Soviet psychiatry trials of the 30’s where political dissidents were found to be “insane” and then “committed”; it cost Soviet psychiatrists their membership in the International Psychiatrists’ Association. With medical care about to become a government function, and , hence a political football , it could happen here .

Because government-run health care leads inevitably to Communism that will socialize your Fascism.

Right.

I am reminded about how paranoid you are to think something like that can happen in this country when it hasn’t happened in other non-Communist countries where the doctors work for the government, like, say, British doctors working for the NHS.

Thanks for demonstrating what paranoia looks like in full-blown mode, and try to find something more plausible to be afraid of, like cats and dogs living together………

Frank, doesn’t the government provide your medical care? Hmm?

I’ll tell you what bothers me: 1) That little stunt by the APA contributed to Goldwater’s loss, and it was deemed unethical, long after its effect was felt; and, 2) I am reminded of the Soviet psychiatry trials of the 30′s where political dissidents were found to be “insane” and then “committed”; it cost Soviet psychiatrists their membership in the International Psychiatrists’ Association. With medical care about to become a government function, and , hence a political football , it could happen here .

Wow, blast from the past. I was a huge Rex Stout fan in high school.

Yes, funny how the practice only gets you hot and bothered when you catch liberals doing it, and how personal it appears to be for you.

Yes, and psychiatric assessments should only be taken seriously when conducted by psychologists, and occasionally, by psychiatrists. But calling all conservatives crazy isn’t even a faulty assessment; it’s just stupid.

You’re right, delusional would be a better term to use, that would be more specific, and it sounds better than saying that conservatives suffer from anal poisoning, which would be plagarism, albeit from a convicted drug addict……….

Here’s a quote that you may be able to wrap your mind around without increasing your intracranial pressure to dangerous levels:

“Detach yourself, Archie, personal resentment of a general statement is a barbarous remnant of a fetish-superstition.”

“If a man constructs a dummy, clothes and paints it in exact outward resemblance of yourself, and proceeds to strike it in the face, does your nose bleed?

Rex Stout, Fer-de-Lance

And referring to Pres Obama as narcissistic is not necessarily a psychological assessment. It depends on the context. “Narcissistic” is not always used in a clinical way.

To make a statement like “The larger point is that the modern conservative movement has a long lineage of nuttiness… ” is to cause one to question, at a minimum, the judgement of the author.

Oliver, that was an election, not a psychiatric assessment.

BTW, the rule only applies to members of the APA, none of whom, AFAIK, have commented on this thread.