Op Ed: Dr. Rossiter's message: "I know you are but what am I?"

Any one that says ALL conservatives or ALL liberals have a mental disorder I would not bother to read what they say.
They are just trying to prove their point of which side that they are against.

I am sure we will see more and more of this trying to "prove" who is wrong and has something mentally wrong with them.

I certainly do not see myself as a liberal. I also do not see myself as what is seen as a conservative any more. I probably would fall more into what could be seen as a moderate.

@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
Any one that says ALL conservatives or ALL liberals have a mental disorder I would not bother to read what they say.
They are just trying to prove their point of which side that they are against.

I am sure we will see more and more of this trying to "prove" who is wrong and has something mentally wrong with them.

I certainly do not see myself as a liberal. I also do not see myself as what is seen as a conservative any more. I probably would fall more into what could be seen as a moderate.

You are absolutely right. Extremist of either stripe more closely resemble each other than the movement that they purport to represent. Eric Hoffer makes a good case for the proposition that these people are seeking to cover the tatters in their own souls with the banner of their cause. Fanatics become fanatics because they do not like themselves.

The whole debate is like a bunch of small kids trading insults and using the famous playground trump card: "I know you are but what am I?"

You are too level headed to be among that crowd.

The current tide that is riding lately here at DJ makes me wonder if those obsessed with political labels and swing to the extreme of one side or the other shouldn't have a check up from the neck up.

It's a new breed of cyber bullying. We saw a religious spin off during the summer. It is interesting though, isn't it?

@ lensman67

The whole debate is like a bunch of small kids trading insults and using the famous playground trump card: "I know you are but what am I?"

I believe that statement pretty well says it all.
The liberals and the conservatives need to try to work together to actually solve this country's problems instead of trying to prove who is the worst.

Nothing can be accomplished by continuing to fight one another.

As the little old ladies are prone to say to one another:
Well done, lens.
That the entire controversy is reminiscent of schoolyard tauntings is I suppose beside the point since I will fail to offer a link to my source.

@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
I believe that statement pretty well says it all.
The liberals and the conservatives need to try to work together to actually solve this country's problems instead of trying to prove who is the worst.

Nothing can be accomplished by continuing to fight one another.

That has seldom happened.
The only time there is any real effort to work together as a people is at the outset of mutually threatening circumstances such as immediately following a national tragedy such as Pearl Harbor or Sept. 11, 2001.
That feeling of unity is generally short-lived; although my recollection of the homefront during WWII seems to be of a mostly unified hatred of NAZIs and Japs and Dagoes..

It amazes how the author continues to try to pull the wool over peoples eyes by basically, well, lying, in his posts. Even if a person puts Op/Ed in the title of their article, I don't believe that allows for one to make false statements.

According to the link provided by the author of this post, this federally funded study was actually in the news on Wednesday, August 13, 2003. The author's intro reads as follows:

One year after a Federally funded study found that conservatism was a mental disorder a Right Wing psychiatrist has released a book, timed for the election cycle, claiming the same things about Liberals. Are we to believe that this is a coincidence?

The linked article was written in 2003 and the study was originally received by the Psychological Bulletin in July 1999. A revision was submitted and accepted by the bulletin in August 2002. This is not "one year" later, in fact, it is almost nine years after the study was originally submitted to Pyschological Bulletin, and almost five years after it was published.

The scientists were not also not hired by the US government. This is an excerpt from the article in the Psychological Bulletin that states where the funding for the study came from:

This work first began while John T. Jost was a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Maryland at College Park, supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant R01-MH52578, National Science Foundation Grant SBR-9417422, and a Research Scientist Award KO5-MHO 1213 to Arie W. Kruglanski. Work continued while Jack Glaser was a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute of Personality and Social Research at the University of California, Berkeley and sponsored by National Institute of Mental Health Grant F32-MH12195 and while Arie W. Kruglanski (supported by
National Science Foundation Grant SBR-9022192) and Frank J. Sulloway were fellows at the Center for Advanced Studies of Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University. Further financial and administrative support for this project was provided by the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University and the Jackson Library Document Delivery Service.

The National Science Foundation receives approximately 40,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The National Institute of Mental Health funds grants for research projects and research training/research career development. I believe I can say with relative certainty that the US Government did not hire these scientists to examine the roots of conservatism.

And, finally, it was not the scientists who believe that it was Bush's aversion to shades of gray and the need for "closure" that led him to ignore intelligence that contradicted his beliefs about Iraq's non existent WMD's. If you look at the link provided by the author of this post, you will see that it says that one of the psychologists involved in the study, Jack Glaser, said the aversion to shades of grey and the need for "closure" could explain the fact that the Bush administration ignored intelligence that contradicted its beliefs about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Well, now that I've got that off my chest, I would like to say a hearty "hear, hear" to Cynthia's statement "The liberals and the conservatives need to try to work together to actually solve this country's problems instead of trying to prove who is the worst." and to moments observations about cyber bullying and obsession, also very well said.

@ KJ (momentsintime)
The current tide that is riding lately here at DJ makes me wonder if those obsessed with political labels and swing to the extreme of one side or the other shouldn't have a check up from the neck up.

It's a new breed of cyber bullying. We saw a religious spin off during the summer. It is interesting though, isn't it?

You are right. Ever since the "Swarm" showed up there has been a lot of nasty attacks and the "...preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance..." that is the hall mark of "Conservative Psychosis." They have a herd mentality which is why they have to constantly reassure each other of the "rightness" of their beliefs.

@ MEA
As the little old ladies are prone to say to one another:
Well done, lens.
That the entire controversy is reminiscent of schoolyard tauntings is I suppose beside the point since I will fail to offer a link to my source.

Yes, they do seem to crave each other's approval and have to be constantly reassured.

The fact that this book comes out a year after Conservatives had a hissy fit over the government study shows beyond all doubt that this is simply a case of tit for tat.

Mea culpa, my comment read: "This is not "one year" later, in fact, it is almost nine years after the study was originally submitted to Pyschological Bulletin, and almost five years after it was published." and should have read "This is not "one year" later, in fact, it is almost eight years after the study was originally submitted to Pyschological Bulletin, and almost four years after it was published."

@ Carolyn E. Price (gohomelaker)
Mea culpa, my comment read: "This is not "one year" later, in fact, it is almost nine years after the study was originally submitted to Pyschological Bulletin, and almost five years after it was published." and should have read "This is not "one year" later, in fact, it is almost eight years after the study was originally submitted to Pyschological Bulletin, and almost four years after it was published."

Point noted and lead changed to reflect this. Thanks. ;o)

@ Carolyn E. Price (gohomelaker)
It amazes how the author continues to try to pull the wool over peoples eyes by basically, well, lying, in his posts. Even if a person puts Op/Ed in the title of their article, I don't believe that allows for one to make false statements.

According to the link provided by the author of this post, this federally funded study was actually in the news on Wednesday, August 13, 2003. The author's intro reads as follows:The National Science Foundation receives approximately 40,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The National Institute of Mental Health funds grants for research projects and research training/research career development. I believe I can say with relative certainty that the US Government did not hire these scientists to examine the roots of conservatism.

And, finally, it was not the scientists who believe that it was Bush's aversion to shades of gray and the need for "closure" that led him to ignore intelligence that contradicted his beliefs about Iraq's non existent WMD's. If you look at the link provided by the author of this post, you will see that it says that one of the psychologists involved in the study, Jack Glaser, said the aversion to shades of grey and the need for "closure" could explain the fact that the Bush administration ignored intelligence that contradicted its beliefs about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Well, now that I've got that off my chest, I would like to say a hearty "hear, hear" to Cynthia's statement "The liberals and the conservatives need to try to work together to actually solve this country's problems instead of trying to prove who is the worst." and to moments observations about cyber bullying and obsession, also very well said.

Thanks for your well done research.

I guess this makes it quite glaringly apparent that articles written by Lensman need to be gone over with a fine tooth comb, as making things up, or stretching the truth or merely "Mea Culpa" (alias, oops, busted, my bad) seem to fly these days.

Serious lack of journalistic integrity is how I see it.

@ Pamela Jean (GotTheScoop)
Thanks for your well done research.

I guess this makes it quite glaringly apparent that articles written by Lensman need to be gone over with a fine tooth comb, as making things up, or stretching the truth or merely "Mea Culpa" (alias, oops, busted, my bad) seem to fly these days.

Serious lack of journalistic integrity is how I see it.

I believe that, given your long record of personal animosity, this constitutes a personal attack.

As for "Mea Culpa" it seems to work for you:

Mea culpa, my comment read: "This is not "one year" later, in fact, it is almost nine years after the study was originally submitted to Pyschological Bulletin, and almost five years after it was published." and should have read "This is not "one year" later, in fact, it is almost eight years after the study was originally submitted to Pyschological Bulletin, and almost four years after it was published."

Your Mea Culpa quote that you are attempting to attribute to me was said by GoHomeLaker.....maybe you need to read before you speak?

You wrote a bunch of unsubstantiated lies under what you seem to think is the protective umbrella of "Op/Ed" - but having an opinion and making things up are not one in the same, atleast not where I come from.

Now, I will not assist in "building your thread" any longer, a thread based upon fraudulent statements and misleading information.

But for future reference: Let The Reader Beware on anything posted by this author....he apparently has a problem with a little something commonly referred to as the Truth.

@ Pamela Jean (GotTheScoop)
Your Mea Culpa quote that you are attempting to attribute to me was said by GoHomeLaker.....maybe you need to read before you speak?

You wrote a bunch of unsubstantiated lies under what you seem to think is the protective umbrella of "Op/Ed" - but having an opinion and making things up are not one in the same, atleast not where I come from.

Now, I will not assist in "building your thread" any longer, a thread based upon fraudulent statements and misleading information.

But for future reference: Let The Reader Beware on anything posted by this author....he apparently has a problem with a little something commonly referred to as the Truth.

Thank you for helping to build this thread. (;oP

Nice try at spin but...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sorry.

@ Mark L Harvey
Nice try at spin but...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sorry.

Thank you for helping to build this thread. (;oP

For those who would like to read the whole study here is a link.

The summery of the article reads:
Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure,regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r
.50); system instability (.47); dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (–.32); uncertainty tolerance (–.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (–.20); fear of threat and loss (.18);and self-esteem (–.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.[

Put simply they are saying that conservatives are terrified of change and uncertainty drives them to over react and to attack like enraged bees.

Well that would certainly seem to fit the profile. ;o)

What apparently escapes the author is this so called "study", even federally funded, was conducted in Berkeley, not exactly known for its objectivity or love of conservatism when it comes to supporting liberal causes.

As I said when I posted links to it earlier this weekend, it would be like asking the leadership of the former Soviet Union Communists to study and define Democracies.

That I know of, the book and Psychiatrist who performed the study on liberals has no similar bias, although it may be hidden and unseen.

One fallacy in the Berkeley Study is that we conservatives are afraid of change, that just isn't so. If the change betters the country or society we support it. But, the changes the left has been pushing off hasn't made anything better, just worse.

That the left desires to keep changing in the direction that is worsening the country is indeed tragic. Higher taxers, abortion on demand, taking guns away from law abiding citizens, affirmative action, over 50% of the citizens drawing government payments of some sort, multiculturalism, political correctness and encouraging citizens to avoid the Military are but a few examples of how the left has changed society for the worse.

I'm sure the left disagrees, but then again, it is they who don't think the country needs God any more or believes all the above makes it better.

Like I said, tragic.

@ LewWaters
What apparently escapes the author is this so called "study", even federally funded, was conducted in Berkeley, not exactly known for its objectivity or love of conservatism when it comes to supporting liberal causes.

As I said when I posted links to it earlier this weekend, it would be like asking the leadership of the former Soviet Union Communists to study and define Democracies.

That I know of, the book and Psychiatrist who performed the study on liberals has no similar bias, although it may be hidden and unseen.

One fallacy in the Berkeley Study is that we conservatives are afraid of change, that just isn't so. If the change betters the country or society we sup
port it. But, the changes the left has been pushing off hasn't made anything better, just worse.

That the left desires to keep changing in the direction that is worsening the country is indeed tragic. Higher taxers, abortion on demand, taking guns away from law abiding citizens, affirmative action, over 50% of the citizens drawing government payments of some sort, multiculturalism, political correctness and encouraging citizens to avoid the Military are but a few examples of how the left has changed society for the worse.

I'm sure the left disagrees, but then again, it is they who don't think the country needs God any more or believes all the above makes it better.

Like I said, tragic.

So you expect us to accept the garbage book by the Anne Coulter of shrinks, Dr. Lyle Rossiter, as having some merit? Seems like rather a double standard--a point I am afraid you managed to miss.

Let's see the study said:

The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justificationof inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.

Seems spot on to me. ;o)

@ lensman67
Seems spot on to me. ;o)

What connection does Coulter have to this Dr.? Please provide a link. Thank you.

@ LewWaters
That the left desires to keep changing in the direction that is worsening the country is indeed tragic. Higher taxers, abortion on demand, taking guns away from law abiding citizens, affirmative action, over 50% of the citizens drawing government payments of some sort, multiculturalism, political correctness and encouraging citizens to avoid the Military are but a few examples of how the left has changed society for the worse.

I'm sure the left disagrees, but then again, it is they who don't think the country needs God any more or believes all the above makes it better.

Like I said, tragic.

So you believe you have the right to be left alone by the government but you also have the right to use the government to cram your religious and moral views down other people's throats? Who gave you the right to stick your nose into what a woman choses to do with her own body?

The study, which you try to dismiss, notes that:

The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.

Your opposition to affirmative action would seem to indicate that they got that one right as well.

America is a country of immigrants where multiple cultures have always interacted but you would now like to change all that and force everyone to accept your values and religion? Again the study seems to be right on target.

Citizens avoiding the military--like Cheney who had "other priorities" when called on to serve or Rush Limbaugh who had a pimple on his butt and so could not serve? The list goes on and on and on. Seems that most of the Right Wing mouth pieces had better things to do than join the military.

Whose God do you think we should all be forced to worship--yours? Perhaps we should just trim a little fat off the Constitution so you can do that.

Let's see:

authoritarianism, (check) dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (check) epistemic and existential needs for closure,regulatory focus, terror management (check) , and ideological rationalization social dominance, system justification (check)

Yep! Seems conservatives have the full list of symptoms.

@ Pamela Jean (GotTheScoop)
What connection does Coulter have to this Dr.? Please provide a link. Thank you.

You need to read more carefully. No one said Coulter had any "connection." I simply noted that like the good doctor Coulter is a Right Wing ideologue with no creditability.

@ lensman67
You need to read more carefully. No one said Coulter had any "connection." I simply noted that like the good doctor Coulter is a Right Wing ideologue with no creditability.

So, because you say the Dr. has no credibility - we are supposed to accept that as a fact? Um, I don't think so, especially considering the source.
You will have to provide facts and data to back up your statement there Lensman. Sorry. Opinions are just that - opinions.

@ Pamela Jean (GotTheScoop)
So, because you say the Dr. has no credibility - we are supposed to accept that as a fact? Um, I don't think so, especially considering the source.
You will have to provide facts and data to back up your statement there Lensman. Sorry. Opinions are just that - opinions.

So because you say that the doctor does have creditability we are supposed to accept that as a fact. I don't think so, especially considering the source.

You will have to provide facts and data to back up your statement there Scoop. Sorry. Opinions are just that--opinions.

@ lensman67
So because you say that the doctor does have creditability we are supposed to accept that as a fact. I don't think so, especially considering the source.

You will have to provide facts and data to back up your statement there Scoop. Sorry. Opinions are just that--opinions.

The article I posted regarding the Dr. was a news report - not an op/ed. I left it to the reader to draw his own conclusions, as opposed to yours which was filled with lies, word play and misconceptions.

Nuff said.

@ Pamela Jean (GotTheScoop)
The article I posted regarding the Dr. was a news report - not an op/ed. I left it to the reader to draw his own conclusions, as opposed to yours which was filled with lies, word play and misconceptions.

Nuff said.

Given your far Right beliefs the "article" you posted was as close to an Op Ed as you could get. At least I had the honesty to label my work for what it was.

My Op Ed merely points out the fact that both sides are busy releasing books and studies that say that the other side is crazy hence my title "I know you are but what am I?" I know that conservatives are not comfortable with ambiguity but I thought you would at least figure that part out.

I have concluded that most of the stuff posted to this blog is scurrilous pro-imperialist blather whether is marked as op-ed or simply left unmarked.
But I'm certain others still accept what is said as honest opinion.

@ MEA
I have concluded that most of the stuff posted to this blog is scurrilous pro-imperialist blather whether is marked as op-ed or simply left unmarked.
But I'm certain others still accept what is said as honest opinion.

PRO IMPERIALIST??? How do you figure that?

@ MEA
I have concluded that most of the stuff posted to this blog is scurrilous pro-imperialist blather whether is marked as op-ed or simply left unmarked.
But I'm certain others still accept what is said as honest opinion.

Naturally, a blithering and rambling individual as yourself will post inanity after inanity.

Matches the Liberal Pathology.

Quite funny, actually.

Try the reds...it seems the browns are still bad.

@ Mark L Harvey
Naturally, a blithering and rambling individual as yourself will post inanity after inanity.

Matches the Liberal Pathology.

Quite funny, actually.

Try the reds...it seems the browns are still bad.

Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r
.50); system instability (.47); dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (–.32); uncertainty tolerance (–.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (–.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (–.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.

Sigh. Seems we have a textbook case here.

@ LewWaters
What apparently escapes the author is this so called "study", even federally funded, was conducted in Berkeley, not exactly known for its objectivity or love of conservatism when it comes to supporting liberal causes.

As I said when I posted links to it earlier this weekend, it would be like asking the leadership of the former Soviet Union Communists to study and define Democracies.

That I know of, the book and Psychiatrist who performed the study on liberals has no similar bias, although it may be hidden and unseen.

One fallacy in the Berkeley Study is that we conservatives are afraid of change, that just isn't so. If the change betters the country or society we support it. But, the changes the left has been pushing off hasn't made anything better, just worse.

That the left desires to keep changing in the direction that is worsening the country is indeed tragic. Higher taxers, abortion on demand, taking guns away from law abiding citizens, affirmative action, over 50% of the citizens drawing government payments of some sort, multiculturalism, political correctness and encouraging citizens to avoid the Military are but a few examples of how the left has changed society for the worse.

I'm sure the left disagrees, but then again, it is they who don't think the country needs God any more or believes all the above makes it better.

Like I said, tragic.

Have you actually read it? Frankly I have my doubts that you did. Are we to take your word, of all people, that it is not biased and that the other study is knowing full well that you have not read either? Typical conservative.

Tragic.

That the left desires to keep changing in the direction that is worsening the country is indeed tragic. Higher taxers, abortion on demand, taking guns away from law abiding citizens, affirmative action, over 50% of the citizens drawing government payments of some sort, multiculturalism, political correctness and encouraging citizens to avoid the Military are but a few examples of how the left has changed society for the worse.

I'm sure the left disagrees, but then again, it is they who don't think the country needs God any more or believes all the above makes it better.

Like I said, tragic.

I have emphasized the points with which I stand, Lew.
You seem a rather negative sort of fellow to me.

@ MEA
I have emphasized the points with which I stand, Lew.
You seem a rather negative sort of fellow to me.

That is a symptom of "conservatism syndrome" which emphasizes:

authoritarianism
dogmatism
intolerance of ambiguity
ideological rationalization,
social dominance
system justification
a strong need for "order" and "structure"
a resistance to change
a justification for inequality
and a strong tendency to react dispositionally in order to manage uncertainty and perceived threat.

Authoritarianism? Check out his delusion that he has the right to impose his morals on women in the realm of what they can do with their own bodies.

Dogmatism? Just about everything he believes.

Ideological rationalization: You should check out the twisted logic Lew uses do deny the simple fact that Saddam had no important links to Al-Queta and no WMD programs.

Intolerance of ambiguity--try him on gay rights

A justification for inequality--check out his stand on affirmative action and multiculturalism.

Typical conservative--tragic.

lensman:

So you believe you have the right to be left alone by the government but you also have the right to use the government to cram your religious and moral views down other people's throats? Who gave you the right to stick your nose into what a woman choses to do with her own body?

What gives you the right to advocate the slaughter of unborn humans? Where have you ever seen me "cramming my religious or moral views down anyone's throat?" Who gave you the right to tell a woman to slaughter the life she carries and to even take our daughters in without our approval or foreknowledge?

Now that that has been said, perhaps you should learn my actual views before running off at the mouth.

Your opposition to affirmative action would seem to indicate that they got that one right as well.

Let's see, Affirmative Action, letting a minority know that they aren't good enough to make anything of themselves without the White Liberals elevation. What is equal about it? Isn't that what Civil Rights were about, equality? I believe it is just as wrong to promote someone because of race as it is to deny them because of race. If 40 years of the program hasn't worked, why continue it? Why not do something that works?

America is a country of immigrants where multiple cultures have always interacted but you would now like to change all that and force everyone to accept your values and religion?

As is usual, you assume facts that are not in evidence. Multiculturalism blocks that interaction you state you hold so dear. It promotes the culture that our ancestors fled when they came here to create a unique American culture, which was usually a blend of all the cultures, not each one separated. That some were denied entry into the "Great Melting Pot" was wrong and was corrected, before the left decided each should return to what their ancestors fled.

Citizens avoiding the military--like Cheney who had "other priorities" when called on to serve or Rush Limbaugh who had a pimple on his butt and so could not serve? The list goes on and on and on. Seems that most of the Right Wing mouth pieces had better things to do than join the military.

I'd be a little careful on that one, if I were you. Several Democrats also did not ever serve or served in abbreviated ways to further political gains.

No one else has ever answered, so let me ask you a couple questions, if I may.

1. Since Bush and Quayle were considered Draft Dodgers for their service in the Guard during Viet Nam, does that make Democrat former presidential candidate, Christopher Dodd also a Draft Dodger, since he served only in the Reserves from 1969 to 1975?

2. Since Military Service was so essential to ones ability to lead in 1988, 2000 and 2004, why was it of no consequence in 1992 and 1996? Why is it of no consequence again in 2008?

You really should check out just who did and who didn't serve, before you run off at the mouth. Neither party has moral claim to Military Service. If they did, why were War heroes George H.W. Bush and Robert Dole castigated by Draft Dodger, B.J. Clinton?

Whose God do you think we should all be forced to worship--yours? Perhaps we should just trim a little fat off the Constitution so you can do that.

Again, spewing before thinking. Show me where I have ever advocated any religion above another?

Funny thing about Separation of Church and State. The words don't exist in our constitution. The concept was "discovered: in 1947 by Judicial Decree The 1802 Thomas Jefferson phrase wasn't placed into the Constitution, but was contained in a letter to the Danbury Baptists ensuring them there was no State Sponsored Religion, which there isn't today.

Funny thing about our First Amendment, which you say we ignore, while it mandates no State Sponsored Religion, it also guarantees the "free exercise of," which liberals in Congress seems to have no problem trying to limit today by some awfully flimsy reasoning. Generic Prayers aren't advocating a specific religion. BTW, when do you anti-religionists demand the 10 Commandments be removed from the Supreme Court and Congressional Sessions not be opened with prayer?

One last tidbit on Separation of Church and State. While the words are not in our Constitution, they are found in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union:

Article 52 (2) In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.

Like I've said before, you really aren't too good at this, are you? Typical Liberal, though, I doubt you even read the links I submitted or the book by Dr. Rossiter, you just let someone else think for you.

But, do try to learn what I actually believe before running off again, okay? You'll save credibility that way and won't look as foolish.

@ LewWaters
lensman: Like I've said before, you really aren't too good at this, are you? Typical Liberal, though, I doubt you even read the links I submitted or the book by Dr. Rossiter, you just let someone else think for you.

But, do try to learn what I actually believe before running off again, okay? You'll save credibility that way and won't look as foolish.

Bravo, Lew! Sadly, the Leftinistra have not the ability to understand...filled with rage and hate that they are and all.

@ LewWaters
.

What gives you the right to advocate the slaughter of unborn humans? Where have you ever seen me "cramming my religious or moral views down anyone's throat?" Who gave you the right to tell a woman to slaughter the life she carries and to even take our daughters in without our approval or foreknowledge?

I see you cramming your religious beliefs down women's throats right here. Who gave you the right to impose your religious view (you do not know enough science) on someone who does not share them? It is none of your business. As for "your daughters" it is their bodies and not yours that are at stake and only they and not authoritarian you that have the right to make decisions that will affect those bodies.

Let's see, Affirmative Action, letting a minority know that they aren't good enough to make anything of themselves without the White Liberals elevation. What is equal about it? Isn't that what Civil Rights were about, equality? I believe it is just as wrong to promote someone because of race as it is to deny them because of race. If 40 years of the program hasn't worked, why continue it? Why not do something that works?

It is a bald faced lie to say that Affirmative Action has not worked. Racial attitudes in this country had not changed since the Civil War and then, with the coming of the Civil Rights movement and affirmative action all that changed. Jim Crow laws were swept away, schools were integrated, often with the aid of Federal marshals since the bigots resisted with violence, and jobs that were once open only to white men were opened to men and women of different colors. You do not want to believe it but then that is just your "ideological rationalization," a symptom of your conservatism, at work.

As is usual, you assume facts that are not in evidence. Multiculturalism blocks that interaction you state you hold so dear. It promotes the culture that our ancestors fled when they came here to create a unique American culture, which was usually a blend of all the cultures, not each one separated. That some were denied entry into the "Great Melting Pot" was wrong and was corrected, before the left decided each should return to what their ancestors fled.

You do not know enough history to even have an opinion on this topic. Throughout most of this country's history new arrivals have lived in their own enclaves, spoken their own language, read their own newspapers and followed their own culture until they, and not someone else, decided that they were ready.

In my own part of the country we had a major "Chinatown" a large Italian sector, a Japanese community (until we put them in concentration camps) and now we have Vietnamese and Koreans.

I come from a multicultural family, Vietnamese, Korean, Indian, Mexican and Swedish, all first generation and all speaking their native language at home and keeping their culture alive--whether you like it or not. My nephew's wife was a Captain in the Marines (she is now a Commander in the Navy) and I would love to see you tell her that she has to dump her culture into your "melting pot."

I'd be a little careful on that one, if I were you. Several Democrats also did not ever serve or served in abbreviated ways to further political gains.

You are not very good at this, are you? You were the one hyperventilating over "liberals" keeping people out of the military so you are the one that has to explain why so many right wing Chicken Hawks dodged service to their country.

It is one thing to not support a war and to not fight in it. It is quite another to support a war and yet sit it out and let others take up the slack. Conservatives leaders are great at getting us into wars but rather reluctant to actually fight them once they do.

Funny thing about Separation of Church and State. The words don't exist in our constitution. The concept was "discovered: in 1947 by Judicial Decree The 1802 Thomas Jefferson phrase wasn't placed into the Constitution, but was contained in a letter to the Danbury Baptists ensuring them there was no State Sponsored Religion, which there isn't today.

Again you do not know enough history to even have an opinion on the topic. We can not have freedom OF religion unless we have freedom FROM the religion of others which means that government has no business promoting any religion of any sort.

And religious people do not have superior rights to secular ones so having ANY religion in the government we all share is a direct violation of their rights and of the rights of everyone who does not share in that particular religion.

You want to pray? then do it on your own time and keep it out of our schools and government.

You really are laughably bad at this. Your knowledge of history, political science, the Constitution, science, religion and a whole host of other topics is pathetic. I still get laughs when I tell educated people of some of the questions you asked on the evolution thread.

I notice that you did not have the courage to post on my Guantanamo thread. Smart move. No sense embarrassing yourself.

You have a lot to be modest about in the education department. You might want to learn a few things before running off again. You will not look quite so laughable.

@ Mark L Harvey
Bravo, Lew! Sadly, the Leftinistra have not the ability to understand...filled with rage and hate that they are and all.

Sad how desperate the right handed wing nuts are for each other's moral support. Filled with fear and hate they have to travel in packs because they do not have the intellectual fire power to go it alone.

Really quite sad.

@ lensman67
Sad how desperate the right handed wing nuts are for each other's moral support. Filled with fear and hate they have to travel in packs because they do not have the intellectual fire power to go it alone.

Really quite sad.

awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

LOL!!

@ Mark L Harvey
awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

LOL!!

That is just about the limit of your intellectual repertoire and it is getting a little pathetic that you use it so often. Sort of a one trick pony aren't you? I guess you simply can't engage on the issues. But then I guess you fear to go into a battle of wits unarmed. (;oP

@ Mark L Harvey
awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

LOL!!

I saw your pitiful McLame story. A Blue State "Conservative." That is funny! You guys really are scraping the bottom of the barrel aren't you?

He does not have a snowball in hell's chance but if he did I hope you are practicing your Spanish for when he grants amnesty to all the illegals and dumps the blame for it all in the laps of conservatives.

@ LewWaters

B.J. Clinton.

What is this sick fascination that Right Wingers have with other people's sex lives? That is the real reason Right Wing men are so obsessed with abortion. They don't give a rat's patooti for "unborn babies." They are all about power over other people's bodies and punishing people for having sex that they do not approve of.

That is why the same people who go bonkers over Clinton's sex life, and abortion are also so terrified of giving equal rights to people of different sexual orientations.

That is also why they are so into censorship.

Face it. Conservatives are obsessed with other people's sex lives and that is sick, sick, sick.

@ lensman67
That is just about the limit of your intellectual repertoire and it is getting a little pathetic that you use it so often. Sort of a one trick pony aren't you? I guess you simply can't engage on the issues. But then I guess you fear to go into a battle of wits unarmed. (;oP

@ lensman67
I saw your pitiful McLame story. A Blue State "Conservative." That is funny! You guys really are scraping the bottom of the barrel aren't you?

He does not have a snowball in hell's chance but if he did I hope you are practicing your Spanish for when he grants amnesty to all the illegals and dumps the blame for it all in the laps of conservatives.

You are so easily goaded and baited it is pathetic. Your "article" was shown to be the typical distort and bend to suit your pathetic nature and yet you still carry on as if you have something. Well, you do have something...garbage...just like everything else you socialists have...ZILCH.

AS we have been telling for quite some time now, you really do suck at this.

Try setting your emotional drivel aside and MAYBE someone will take you seriously and stop playing the victim card...accept your own inabilities and admit to your own shortcomings...we all have them; it isn't anything to be ashamed of, really. Try it sometime.

While we are at it, Obama hasn't a snowball's chance in hell to make it to the White House and neither does Hillary.

Get used to it. You still haven't answered why the president lied, either. What are you afraid of?

Do try and keep up...K?

@ Mark L Harvey
You are so easily goaded and baited it is pathetic. Your "article" was shown to be the typical distort and bend to suit your pathetic nature and yet you still carry on as if you have something. Well, you do have something...garbage...just like everything else you socialists have...ZILCH.

AS we have been telling for quite some time now, you really do suck at this.

Try setting your emotional drivel aside and MAYBE someone will take you seriously and stop playing the victim card...accept your own inabilities and admit to your own shortcomings...we all have them; it isn't anything to be ashamed of, really. Try it sometime.

While we are at it, Obama hasn't a snowball's chance in hell to make it to the White House and neither does Hillary.

Get used to it. You still haven't answered why the president lied, either. What are you afraid of?

Do try and keep up...K?

If it wasn't for personal attacks you would have nothing to say. Sorry but I do not read the drivel you put in your articles so I have no clue what your are ranting about.

I noticed that you did not have the courage to post on the Guantanamo thread either. Smart move. No sense going into a battle of with unarmed.

You are right about one thing however. You do have massive shortcomings. Rather pathetic really.

@ lensman67
Sad how desperate the right handed wing nuts are for each other's moral support. Filled with fear and hate they have to travel in packs because they do not have the intellectual fire power to go it alone.

Really quite sad.

You call them "packs" - we call them friends.....ever had one?

Doubtful with your caustic approach.

As I was reading these comments I wanted to add one thought. You say that people have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body - i.e. abortion and rail against those in opposition of it.
How about we do this. Take away ALL government funding for abortion. Make every single clinic and doctor and hospital that performs abortion expect payment from the individual that is receiving the services. No "freebies" from Uncle Sam. If you want an abortion, have an abortion, but don't expect taxpayers to foot the bill.
That way no one is cramming anything down anyone's throats, and everyone can pay their own way for whatever personal decisions they want to make for themselves - don't you think that would be fair?

I think lensman is boorishly self-congratulatory; but his thinking is light years superior to the reactionary five who bash everybody who does not share their particular biases.
But as your distaff leader points out--I am probably off topic.

@ Pamela Jean (GotTheScoop)
You call them "packs" - we call them friends.....ever had one?

Doubtful with your caustic approach.

As I was reading these comments I wanted to add one thought. You say that people have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body - i.e. abortion and rail against those in opposition of it.
How about we do this. Take away ALL government funding for abortion. Make every single clinic and doctor and hospital that performs abortion expect payment from the individual that is receiving the services. No "freebies" from Uncle Sam. If you want an abortion, have an abortion, but don't expect taxpayers to foot the bill.
That way no one is cramming anything down anyone's throats, and everyone can pay their own way for whatever personal decisions they want to make for themselves - don't you think that would be fair?

I admit I am uninformed; but perhaps you would explain to me the circumstances under which any government underwrites abortion.

@ MEA
I admit I am uninformed; but perhaps you would explain to me the circumstances under which any government underwrites abortion.

Seven states and the District of Columbia fully fund abortions by legislative decision. Since 1990 the California Legislature put California in this group by voting to fund abortion on demand. (AK, CA, HI, MD, NY, OR, WA)

Three Ways Taxpayers' Money Is Being Used to Support Abortion:
1) President Bush is funding selected surgical abortions via Medicaid (Title XIX)
2) President Bush is funding chemical abortions via both Medicaid (Title XIX) and via the Title X birth/population control and Planned Parenthood funding program
3) President Bush is funding Planned Parenthood, the largest perpetrators of child-murder-by-abortion in the United States (Planned Parenthood reports murdering over 200,000 unborn children annually by surgical abortion alone), through both Medicaid (Title XIX) and Title X, with over $50 million per year through each program, for a total of over $100 million per year, just through these two Planned Parenthood funding mechanisms

Furthermore, it was reported that the Title X birth/population control funding has increased during the Bush administration, by more than $ 26,000,000 over the last Clinton budget, rising from Clinton's $ 254 million in FY 2001, to Bush's $ 265 million in FY 2002, and rising higher again to Bush's $ 280 million in FY 2004.

All of this surgical abortion, chemical abortion, and Planned Parenthood funding is buried in the grotesquely huge U.S. Health and Human Services Appropriations bills that Congress and the President break their oaths of office by voting for and signing each year.
In addition to being immoral by funding surgical abortion, chemical abortion, birth control for unmarried adolescents even if their parents object, and child-murderering-abortionists (i.e. Planned Parenthood), the bills are entirely unconstitutional, full of "pork" funding of local projects, and examples of creeping socialism in America.
1. PLANNED PARENTHOOD FUNDING THROUGH TITLE X
The Title X program includes funding for contraceptive birth control; birth control that causes chemical abortions; and birth control for unmarried adolescents, even if their parents object to the federal government giving their children hormonal drugs and devices with which to fornicate.

The Title X program is also one of the principal federal government funding mechanisms for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the nation's largest chain of child-murder-by-abortion centers, murdering over 200,000 unborn human beings by surgical abortion alone each year.
Information on Title X: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Public Health and Science, Office of Population Affairs
Source: http://opa.osophs.dhhs.gov/titlex/ofp.html

"Created in 1970, the Title X program is the only Federal program solely dedicated to family planning and reproductive health with a mandate to provide a broad range of acceptable and effective family planning methods and services."

Crawl out from under your ROCK of denial Lensman - or was it MEA that asked me this? I keep confusing the two.

@ Pamela Jean (GotTheScoop)
You call them "packs" - we call them friends.....ever had one?

Doubtful with your caustic approach.

As I was reading these comments I wanted to add one thought. You say that people have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body - i.e. abortion and rail against those in opposition of it.
How about we do this. Take away ALL government funding for abortion. Make every single clinic and doctor and hospital that performs abortion expect payment from the individual that is receiving the services. No "freebies" from Uncle Sam. If you want an abortion, have an abortion, but don't expect taxpayers to foot the bill.
That way no one is cramming anything down anyone's throats, and everyone can pay their own way for whatever personal decisions they want to make for themselves - don't you think that would be fair?

Yes, I use to think you were one. Just goes to show what a prize the rest of the Swarm has gotten.

As for government funding hot tip Scoop. You do not have the right to pick and choose which programs your tax dollars will support. If that were the case then the majority of Americans would have cut off the money for Bush's wars a long time ago. We might also decide to cut off any Federal money for the fly over states that do not have the population to out vote the coasts. That is not how it works.

But that is not the real problem. The real problem is when outsiders decide to stick their noses into personal decisions that are none of their business. We all remember just how well that went in the Terri Schiavo case.

People who do not like abortion should not have one but they do not have any right to impose their values on other people.

@ MEA
I think lensman is boorishly self-congratulatory; but his thinking is light years superior to the reactionary five who bash everybody who does not share their particular biases.
But as your distaff leader points out--I am probably off topic.

Gee, thanks---I think. ;o)

@ MEA
I think lensman is boorishly self-congratulatory; but his thinking is light years superior to the reactionary five who bash everybody who does not share their particular biases.
But as your distaff leader points out--I am probably off topic.

@ lensman67
Gee, thanks---I think. ;o)

Now it pats itself on the back - wow.

@ MEA
I admit I am uninformed; but perhaps you would explain to me the circumstances under which any government underwrites abortion.

The same circumstances under which the underwrite any other program. It is in the "mission statement" of the government that it "provide for the common welfare" and the majority of voters have decided that this falls under that umbrella.

But the real problem is no