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?
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.
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...
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!
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
He the added ...
The demand for the immediate liberation of colonies that is put forward by all revolutionary social democrats is also impracticable under capitalism without a series of revolutions. But from this it does not mean that social democracy should reject the immediate and most determined struggle for all demands... This demand must be formulated and put through in a revolutionary and not a reformist manner, going beyond the bounds of bourgeois legality, breaking them down, going beyond speeches in parliament and verbal protests and drawing the masses into decisive action, extending and intensifying the struggle for every fundamental democratic demand up to a proletarian onslaught on the bourgeoisie.
Ending with the battle cry ...
"Yeeeeeeeearrrrrrhhhhh!"
The RAT party in KS has devoted itself to infiltrating and destroying the KS Republican party, because they know the RAT party can never gain statewide power. The "moderate" Republicans are actually RATs who have sneaked into the Republican party to commit sabotage. Dean knows this and is praising the spies.
Check my tagline.
Did the writer of this piece reach orgasm?
YYYYYYYyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!
Same thing could be said about pedophiles. Merge the DNC with NAMBLA if you haven't already.