Posted on 02/26/2005 11:45:20 AM PST by MisterRepublican
And concluding his backyard speech with a litany of Democratic values, he added: "This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."
When told of Dean's remarks, Derrick Sontag -- executive director of the Kansas Republican Party -- said he was "shocked."
"My immediate reaction to that whole dialogue is, it's full of hatred," Sontag said. "The Democratic Party has elected a leader that's full of hatred."
Have you noticed Dean is always braying about someone (Rush, conservatives) trying to force him to do something or other? Geez, get over yourself, dude, the rest of the country doesn't give a damn what you do. Stop playing the victim all the time.
"And concluding his backyard speech with a litany of Democratic values, he added: "This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."
You know your in trouble when you have to TELL people they're "the good".
Calling the other side evil--wasn't that what you people were always bitching about the Religious Right doing?
Hey, but President Bush is dividing the country, right?
Lawrence is probably one of the very few towns in KS where he could get an audience. The news story makes it sound like he's in the heart of GOP country talking to an audience of real Kansans. Lawrence is as liberal as anyplace in Vermont. He should have traveled west to someplace like Hoxie where his audience would have consisted solely of the town drunk.
I now understand why Dr. Dean's wife doesn't want to adopt his surname - he's freakin' nuts.
I can't consider that--I'm still trying to figure out how someone could prevent someone else from having the right to be tolerant. What the hell does THAT mean?
Jeff Watson, 25, Kansas Public Radio employee, Lawrence, on the pro-Democrat message: "That's absolutely what people need to hear, especially in a state like this -- that if you're a Democrat and you think like a Democrat, you're not wrong. You're not right. Nobody is ever wholly right. But you're not wrong."Notice how many of these guys sound like Kerry.They are obsessed with taking both sides to every issue.
http://www.kemporama.com/wavs/howard_dean_long1.mp3
Scream on Baby!
It would be pretty freaking strange and amazing if there were. A whole county without a single Democrat?
Hm. Wonder if Dean knows something I don't know...
I guess it's painful when Republicans let liberals just be liberals.
According to Dr. Dean, being a stupid fanatic must really suck.
who joined nearly 1,000 others in paying $5 to hear Dean,
Ha ha. The party that can't survive on donations now has to resort to charging a fee to hear them. What a joke.
Talk about intolerance -- what a hate-filled screed.
Right on, brother! Preach it!
Indeed, Douglas County (Lawrence is the county seat) was the only blue county in an otherwise solid red Kansas.
All those faculty kooks and left-wing administrators at KU...
Yeah, sure Howie, that's why 2004 voters went for Bush.
Conservative pro-life Christian voters made monumental contributions to GWB's 2004 vote totals. Pres Bush won with 63 Million Votes (13 million more than 2000).
The map, though impressive, conveys the misleading impression that blue state Catholics voted for Kerry (a CINO).
According to EWTN "The World Over Live" analysts, with the exception of VA, where Catholics spit 70/30 in favor of Bush, the majority of Catholic voters split 55/45 for Bush.....a whopping number of votes since Catholics number about 52 million Americans.
According to CNN exit polls, Bush voters included 38% of union members, 40% of those with union members in their households, 42% of those earning $15,000-$30,000, 44% of those who earn under $50,000 and 44% of Latinos, 45% of youth (aged 18-29), 13% of liberals—even 11% of Democrats voted for Bush.
2004 Election polls indicated 34% called themselves conservative, 21% liberal.
If you look closely, the map appears to place the insignificant "Other Voters" in the ocean.....that's accurate, because "Other Voters--RINO Republicans" were on cruise ships.
(MAP UPDATE Bush won Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico later.)
I've Paid more than that to see a worse comedy routine. This is hilarious!
That's a good strategy. Every time the baby killers/gay marriage boosters try to say they are good and we are evil, accuse them of intollerant hate speech. Good people don't do that.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1351096/posts
Pathology of the Left...
In 2003 the American Psychological Association printed a study by a few academicians from Cal-Berkeley and the University of (the People's Republic of) Maryland. The study, entitled "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," purported to have identified some determinants that are common to those holding a "conservative" worldview.
As one reads the report, it becomes readily apparent that their "norm" -- that is, their control group -- was somewhere to the left of SanFranNan Pelosi and her Ya Ya sisters, Babs Boxer and Di Feinstein -- but then, what are we to expect from Cal-Berkeley and UM, or just about any of our nation's "leading" academic institutions?
The authors received more than 1.2 million of your hard-earned tax dollars from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation in order to, by their own account, "consider evidence for and against the hypotheses that political conservatism is significantly associated with (1) mental rigidity and closed-mindedness; (2) lowered self-esteem; (3) fear, anger, and aggression; (4) pessimism, disgust, and contempt; (5) loss prevention; (6) fear of death; (7) threat arising from social and economic deprivation; and (8) threat to the stability of the social system."
In other words, if you (1) have an opinion; and are (2) humble; (3) assertive; (4) a realist; (5) a conservationist; (6) not suicidal; (7) from modest means; and (8) a constitutional constructionist, or worse, a Christian, then you're probably a wacky conservative.
Actually, what taxpayers got was a re-warmed 1950-vintage study of what the authors call "authoritarianism and the fascist potential in personality.'' They assert that "one is justified in referring to Hitler, Mussolini, Reagan, and Limbaugh as right-wing conservatives..." (Is it just us, or is that a rather tendentious juxtaposition of murderous tyrants and conservative icons?) All in all, this research stands as a sterling example of academic twaddle, providing "an integrative, meta-analytic review of research on epistemic, existential, and ideological bases of conservatism." The authors' ultimate finding -- for what it's worth -- is that conservatives tend to "arrive at premature conclusions and impose simplistic clichès and stereotypes," which, ironically, is precisely what the authors have done.
For two long years, The Patriot's editorial staff waited for conservative behaviorist academicians to respond to this farcical pseudo-scholarly diatribe with an article outlining the pathology of liberalism (contemporary, not classical). Alas, we can only conclude that the last conservative behaviorist left the academy a long time ago, but forgot to turn out the lights. That being the case, what follows is a rebuttal to this Leftist invective in the most general terms -- sans the $1.2 million in confiscated wages and a forest of pulp for reprinting in "scholarly journals."
Now then, what constitutes a contemporary liberal -- and why?
Liberals are almost uniformly defined by their hypocrisy and dissociation from reality. For example, the wealthiest U.S. senators -- among them Kerry, Kennedy, Corzine, Kohl, Rockefeller, Feinstein, and Rhode Island RINO Lincoln Chaffee -- fancy themselves as fighters for the poor, but they have no idea of what it's like to live paycheck-to-paycheck. Liberals speak of unity, but they appeal to the worst in human nature by dividing Americans into dependent constituencies. Just who are these liberal constituencies? They support freedom of thought, unless your thoughts don't comport with theirs. They feign tolerance while practicing intolerance. They resist open discussion and debate of their views, yet seek to silence dissenters. They insist that they care more about protecting habitat than those who hunt and fish. They protest for nature conservation while advocating homosexuality. They denounce capital punishment for the most heinous of criminals, while ardently supporting the killing of the most innocent among us -- children prior to birth. They hate private-gun ownership, but they wink and nod when it comes to WMD in the hands of tyrants. They advocate for big government but want to restrain free enterprise.
Liberals constantly assert their First Amendment rights, except, of course, when it comes to religion. Here, they firmly adhere to the doctrines of secular atheism. They believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than marijuana smoke. They believe that one nut accused of bombing an Alabama abortion clinic deserves far more law-enforcement attention than Jihadi cells planning the 9/11 attacks. They call 9/11 victims "Hitlerian" while calling their murderers "oppressed." They hate SUVs, unless imported and driven by soccer moms. They believe trial lawyers save lives and doctors kill people. They believe the solution to racism is to treat people differently on the basis of their skin color. They deride moral clarity because they can't survive its scrutiny. They promote peace but foment division and hate -- ad infinitum.
Why do liberals believe what they believe -- and act the way they act?
Liberal pathology is well defined. Liberals tend to be mentally rigid and closed-minded because they are insecure, the result of low self-esteem associated, predominantly, with fatherless households or critically dysfunctional families. They exhibit fear, anger, and aggression -- the behavioral consequences of arrested emotional development associated with childhood trauma, primarily rejection by a significant family member of origin (as noted above) or some other childhood trauma. Liberals display pessimism, disgust, and contempt for much the same reason. They focus on loss prevention because they have suffered significant loss. They fear death because they have little or no meaningful connection with their Heavenly Father -- often the result of the disconnect with their earthly fathers. They often come from socially and/or economically deprived homes. Liberals reject individual responsibility and social stability because these were not modeled for them as children.
Sound familiar -- apparently the profs at Cal-Berkeley and Maryland attributed their own pathological traits to their opposition. It's called projection -- or hypocrisy.
Sure, there are many conservatives who were raised by a single parent or in critically dysfunctional homes. However, somewhere along the way, they were lifted out of their misery by the grace of God -- and often in conjunction with some significant mentor who modeled hope and responsibility for them. As a result, they have the courage to internalize their locus of responsibility, unlike liberals, who externalize responsibility for problems and solutions, holding others and society to blame for their ills, and making the state the arbiter of proper conduct -- even proper thought.
On a final note, it's no coincidence that conservative political bases tend to be suburban or rural, while liberal political bases tend to be urban (see http://FederalistPatriot.US/map.asp). The social, cultural and economic blight in many urban settings are the catalysts for producing generations of liberals. Many urbanites no longer have a connection with "the land" (self-sufficiency) and, thus, tend to be largely dependent on the state for all manner of their welfare, protection and sustenance -- "It Takes a Village" after all.
Quote of the week...
"The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses. ... There is no comparable academic industry devoted to studying the psychological underpinnings of liberalism. Liberals, you see, embrace liberalism for an obvious and uncomplicated reason -- liberalism is self-evidently true. But conservatives embrace conservatism for reasons that must be excavated from their inner turmoils, many of them pitiable or disreputable." --George Will
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.