Liberals BEWARE...seek help ASAP

[Ringo]

Its been rumored, it has looked factual to many laymen, and even wacko's shake their heads at this bunch!! I spect there is help, even though Exorcism may be the only hope for some, seek help immediately!!!:mw:pblade:akbar:Q:ydt:nerd

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494

[issac the dragon]

Doesn't that include Jesus who instructed a rich man to give all his wealth to the poor? Or that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven?

Ringo, you need to be careful what you post.

[April15]

That piece was meant as a sarcastic retort for conservatives and their claim that liberalism is a mental defect.
I guess you missed the sarcasum.

[toxic]

Actually, it IS common for psychiatrists and psychologists to recommend involvement in politics or religion, to those with social/mental problems.

I figure that is how the Republican Party was created. It was surely some Anal Thumb Sucking Group Therapy experiment that went bad.

Of course, the problem with this article is his arguments conflict with themselves and English definitions. This is little problem for Conservatives who don't understand English, Nature or Science.

For example, he redefines Liberals as Communists, but fails again when he says they dismiss "free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity"!! BUT WHO supports communal/social cooperation more than Communists??

No sooner does he appaulde cooperation, than he rejects social civilization of government, claiming it subordinates the individual.

Actually, this is the most confusing jumble of double-talk and thought reversals I have read in a while. This guy needs to go to "group". :rofl

[Yellowdogtexan]

So the little baby boy wants to play. Let me top your one lone nutty shrink with some real studies http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/arts/12part.html?pagewanted=printMr. Jost did his own research on the red-blue divide. Using the Internet he and his collaborators gave personality tests to hundreds of thousands of Americans. He found states with people who scored high on “openness” were significantly more likely to have voted for the Democratic candidate in the past three elections, even after adjustments were made for income, ethnicity and population density. States that scored high on “conscientiousness” went Republican in the past three elections.

Some of these psychological studies have been dogged by charges of bias however. In 2003 a mammoth survey of more than 50 years of research on the psychology of conservatism that Mr. Jost and Mr. Kruglanski undertook with the help of Jack Glaser and Frank Sulloway at Berkeley concluded that conservatives tend to be “rigid,” “close-minded” and “fearful,” less tolerant of minorities and more tolerant of inequality. At the time the conservative columnist George F. Will ridiculed the results: “The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses.”

The authors insist they are not making value judgments; whether a particular trait is positive or negative depends on circumstance. “Fear of death has the highest correlation with being conservative,” Mr. Sulloway said. But he continued: “What’s wrong with fearing death? If you don’t fear death, evolution eliminates you from the population.”

Accusations of bias against conservatives go way back, to Theodor Adorno and other scholars who, after World War II, came up with the “authoritarian personality” to explain the link between the far right and fascist regimes.

As for the present research, John Zaller, a political scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, said: “I am personally embarrassed by some of the leading work by psychologists on personality and conservatism. I take the data to be valid, but I feel the manner of describing it too often sets up conservatives to look bad.”Conservatives do badly on these tests because the traits that cause them to be conservatives are really very sad. Conservatives only see things in term of black and white while liberal minds are able to understand more complex concepts.http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtmlAlthough they concluded that conservatives are less "integratively complex" than others are, Glaser said, "it doesn't mean that they're simple-minded."

Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser said.

He pointed as an example to a 2001 trip to Italy, where President George W. Bush was asked to explain himself. The Republican president told assembled world leaders, "I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right." And in 2002, Bush told a British reporter, "Look, my job isn't to nuance."I tend to disagree with the simple minded characterization above.

Finally, this analysis in this study is amusing. The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought - the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said.

The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views, they wrote.

Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism - an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.).

Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way, the authors commented in a published reply to the article. Rush, Reagan, Hitler and Mussolini do have a great deal in common.

[Wabash]

So the little baby boy wants to play. Let me top your one lone nutty shrink with some real studies http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/arts/12part.html?pagewanted=printConservatives do badly on these tests because the traits that cause them to be conservatives are really very sad. Conservatives only see things in term of black and white while liberal minds are able to understand more complex concepts.http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtmlI tend to disagree with the simple minded characterization above.

Finally, this analysis in this study is amusing. Rush, Reagan, Hitler and Mussolini do have a great deal in common.

Bullshit! Hitler was a Stand alone guy...Mussolini was a fucking follower, kinda like you doggie.....low lifes all.....

Rush and Ronnie are in a class by themselves, so high in the food chain, that your jealousy shows!

[Ringo]

So the little baby boy wants to play. Let me top your one lone nutty shrink with some real studies http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/arts/12part.html?pagewanted=printConservatives do badly on these tests because the traits that cause them to be conservatives are really very sad. Conservatives only see things in term of black and white while liberal minds are able to understand more complex concepts.http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtmlI tend to disagree with the simple minded characterization above.

Finally, this analysis in this study is amusing. Rush, Reagan, Hitler and Mussolini do have a great deal in common.

Hitler & Mussolini were LEFT WING Jr, Rush & Reagen were plain & simple Americans with the BRILLIANCE of Conservatism! My God Rush would destroy your ass in any kind of debate on Liberalism you could muster, as I find you quite ignorant for the most part and a complete asshole to boot!!:mw:sheep:devil

[Yellowdogtexan]

I knew that the science would be too complicated for you to understand. I would rely on a study from Stanford over any like solo right wing nut case shrink any say of the week.

[Yellowdogtexan]

I bet that wabby and ringo were real whiny babies. http://susiemadrak.com/2006/03/20/07/01/you-mean-they-really-are-whiny-ass-titty-babies/But the new results are worth a look. In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The kids’ personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who had known them for months. There’s no reason to think political bias skewed the ratings — the investigators were not looking at political orientation back then. Even if they had been, it’s unlikely that 3- and 4-year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings.

A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.

The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective.

Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country. But within his sample, he says, the results hold. He reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial.

[Trueblue]

The ultra cons need to read a book once in a while. Hitler and Mussolini were not liberals.

[Trueblue]

I bet that wabby and ringo were real whiny babies. http://susiemadrak.com/2006/03/20/07/01/you-mean-they-really-are-whiny-ass-titty-babies/

:snicker

[April15]

Hitler & Mussolini were LEFT WING Jr, Rush & Reagen were plain & simple Americans with the BRILLIANCE of Conservatism! My God Rush would destroy your ass in any kind of debate on Liberalism you could muster, as I find you quite ignorant for the most part and a complete asshole to boot!!:mw:sheep:devilRush couldn't debate his way out of a wet bag. That bloated wind machine has a practiced speel and just like raygun is not a true American. They were are both profiteers of the worst kind. And raygun was a war criminal and traitor to his own nation!

[Yellowdogtexan]

My God Rush would destroy your ass in any kind of debate on Liberalism you could muster, as I find you quite ignorant for the most part and a complete asshole to boot!rush is a coward who relies on screened calls. You can not talk to rush unless you lie to the screener because rush can not stand to be confronted with the truth.

Rush was challenged a while back to meet with the heros from Votevets.org and ran away like a crying baby from the challenge. rush is far too much of a coward and is far too stupid to engage in a real debate.

Again, rush can prove me wrong by agreeing to meet with the so-called phony soldiers from votevets.org.