"NOYB" wrote in message k.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
It had the whiff of parody. Psychologists dissecting the conservative
brain?

A press release from UC Berkeley

snip

UC Berkeley, eh? Not worth reading then.

Exactly the point....closed minded conservatives.

"NOYB" wrote in message rthlink.net...
Stolen from the internet:


A Frank Study on What Makes a Political Liberal
You've probably heard about the Berkeley study done with your tax dollars on
what makes a political conservative. Here are the factors they identified:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

Funny enough, I had been doing my own study about what makes a political
liberal. I think mine was much more efficient, because I traced it to a
single factor:

* They're f'ing morons

As evidence of this finding, just listen to any liberal. Ever read anything
from Noam Chomsky? What a dumbass. Ever seen an article in The Nation? You
can almost imagine the drool stains on the original copy of whomever wrote
it. Heard Michael Moore speak? Than man is fat and ugly! While that doesn't
prove or disprove my theory, he's also a nitwit, which goes with my
findings.

And ever see a bunch of liberals get together for a protest? It's like a
whole gaggle of retards! You almost expect, that with that much stupidity in
one area, it will collapse upon itself and from a logic black hole, sucking
in all sense that gets near it.

And then there is liberal Hollywood where people are about as dumb as you
can be without forgetting to breathe. It's like that to get into Hollywood
you need to take an intelligence test, and they'll only let you in if it
comes up negative.

Then there are liberal congressmen and women. I've seen them argue on
C-SPAN, and they're so moronic I want to hit them with rocks (there's that
aggression).

Well, I think my study was pretty thorough on what makes a liberal, but what
I really want to find is how to cure it. Liberals seems to protect their
idiocy by forming some sort of force field of pure stupidity, a force field
so strong that logic can't penetrate it. What can penetrate it, though, is a
large stick. Such an item is known to the scientific community as a "whomp'n
stick".

What I want to find out is if by whomp'n a liberal whenever he says
something stupid, can I train him away from liberalism through pure pain
avoidance. My theory is that it will cause conservatism as defined by the
Berkeley study:

* Fear and aggression - Fear of a whomp'n
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity - "Are you going to whomp me or
not?"
* Uncertainty avoidance - "I'll stay quiet so I don't get whomped."
* Need for cognitive closure - "Someone patch up this head wound."
* Terror management - "I'll crouch in the corner and be quiet so the scary
man doesn't whomp me."

So there is the study: will a group of liberal who gets whomped have more
converts to conservatism than a control group with no whomp'n.

Ahh... screw the control group; I'm going to whomp 'em both.

Now all I need is millions in a government grant and a stick fit for
whomp'n.

Oh, and I'll need liberal volunteers. The Berkeley scientists from the
previous study are sure free to help out in this one.

WHOMP! WHOMP!

WHERE did you get such horse****?

snip

I'm afraid it is going to take a significantly larger number of body
bags to force the Bush Administration to come to some sort of sense.
Today's news reports were full of features about ultra-conservative
mullahs from Iran returning to Iraq to take up where they left before
Saddam, to establish a theocracy in Iraq. Now *that* should be
interesting.

You really have to wonder how stupid Bush really is to go down the path
he is following. He is creating a world in which those who oppose us are
solidifying in ways never imagined in the "good" old days of the
Kremlin.

We're going to take a big hit from the terrorists, and when we do, it
will be because of Bush. That has to be made crystal clear to Americans.



Here is a news flash for you....we already did. Shall we place the blame
for 9-11 then
on the hands of BJ Clinton?

While slick Willie has done his fair share of bad things, this is not one of
them.

Look for the president that was doing black bag ops to provide weapons to
"friendly" fighters in the middle east. This is a big part of the blame.
Every oil friendly politician who supported the House of Saud with weapons
and military support without asking questions has a fair share of the blame.
Support of Israel with no questions asked, and no conditions imposed, in
return for our monetary and military support certainly did not help
anything.

These bad policies for most of two generations have brought the USA to the
place it is now in the Arab street. There is no silver bullet that will fix
the mess. It would seem that it may take as long to fix the mess as it did
to make it in the first place.

Mark Browne

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jamce1 wrote:
harry,

i think what is being lost here is that another attack would be good for
bush,
ie simple minded people will always revert back to basic instincts when
attacked. he makes people feel good and safe with his soundbites,
wargames, and
religeous good vs evil bull****. 911 was the best thing that ever
happened to
this administration, and he would surely be one term if it wasnt for
that.

I'm sure there are Bush-ites who are praying to Allah for another attack
so that their "fearful leader" can try, once again, to look
"presidential," instead of lookling like an idiot.

That's where Dems and Republicans differ. We'd never hope for tragedy and
suffering just to further our agenda. You guys, however, were caught
red-handed in California trying to prolong the budget crisis. You're a
bunch of sick *******s that aren't worth a piece of dried up dog poop on the
bottom of some bum's sole.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
Stolen from the internet:


A Frank Study on What Makes a Political Liberal
You've probably heard about the Berkeley study done with your tax
dollars on
what makes a political conservative. Here are the factors they
identified:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

Funny enough, I had been doing my own study about what makes a political
liberal. I think mine was much more efficient, because I traced it to a
single factor:

* They're f'ing morons

As evidence of this finding, just listen to any liberal. Ever read
anything
from Noam Chomsky? What a dumbass. Ever seen an article in The Nation?
You
can almost imagine the drool stains on the original copy of whomever
wrote
it. Heard Michael Moore speak? Than man is fat and ugly! While that
doesn't
prove or disprove my theory, he's also a nitwit, which goes with my
findings.

And ever see a bunch of liberals get together for a protest? It's like a
whole gaggle of retards! You almost expect, that with that much
stupidity in
one area, it will collapse upon itself and from a logic black hole,
sucking
in all sense that gets near it.

And then there is liberal Hollywood where people are about as dumb as
you
can be without forgetting to breathe. It's like that to get into
Hollywood
you need to take an intelligence test, and they'll only let you in if it
comes up negative.

Then there are liberal congressmen and women. I've seen them argue on
C-SPAN, and they're so moronic I want to hit them with rocks (there's
that
aggression).

Well, I think my study was pretty thorough on what makes a liberal, but
what
I really want to find is how to cure it. Liberals seems to protect their
idiocy by forming some sort of force field of pure stupidity, a force
field
so strong that logic can't penetrate it. What can penetrate it, though,
is a
large stick. Such an item is known to the scientific community as a
"whomp'n
stick".

What I want to find out is if by whomp'n a liberal whenever he says
something stupid, can I train him away from liberalism through pure pain
avoidance. My theory is that it will cause conservatism as defined by
the
Berkeley study:

* Fear and aggression - Fear of a whomp'n
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity - "Are you going to whomp me or
not?"
* Uncertainty avoidance - "I'll stay quiet so I don't get whomped."
* Need for cognitive closure - "Someone patch up this head wound."
* Terror management - "I'll crouch in the corner and be quiet so the
scary
man doesn't whomp me."

So there is the study: will a group of liberal who gets whomped have
more
converts to conservatism than a control group with no whomp'n.

Ahh... screw the control group; I'm going to whomp 'em both.

Now all I need is millions in a government grant and a stick fit for
whomp'n.

Oh, and I'll need liberal volunteers. The Berkeley scientists from the
previous study are sure free to help out in this one.

WHOMP! WHOMP!

WHERE did you get such horse****?

NPR. :-)

"Mark Browne" wrote in message news:1EOXa.48146
One of my biggest problems with authority is that it attracts the few truly
"evil" to the position. Any position of power attracts these people like a
flies to dog droppings. Once these "evil" people get into the these
positions it is virtually impossible to dislodge them. As long as they keep
their dealings concealed from the light of day, most people are blissfully
unaware that anything bad is going on. I would take that a step further and
say that most people are too busy living thier lives to even look and see
how things are going. This gives the scummy folks a fairly free reign to do
whatever they want.

Absolutely. Big business (mostly conservative) is just choked FULL of
crooks, people who are cooking books on a daily basis, robbing Peter
to pay Paul, and on and on.

I used to expect that most elected people are good; experience has changed
that opinion. I have come to expect this subversion of authority as a part
of the human condition, and look for this sort of thing from virtually any
position of authority. Constant watchfulness of the elected leaders is a
necessary part of democracy. I would also say that it is necessary part of
being a stockholder.

Mark Browne

Again, how true. You can't trust an elected official of any party, at
any given time, in my opinion. Too much up for grabs, so to speak.

Dave Hall wrote in message ...
basskisser wrote:

It had the whiff of parody. Psychologists dissecting the conservative
brain?

A press release from UC Berkeley

Here's a REAL objective piece. Right from the heart of the bastion of
liberalism.


announced that researchers, culling
50 years of data, had identified psychological patterns common to the
minds of right-wingers. Their findings, published in the American
Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin, listed these
predictors of conservatism: fear, aggression, dogmatism,
authoritarianism, tolerance of inequality, intolerance of ambiguity,
resistance to change and Hardly a flattering portrait.

Let's assume for a second, that this is correct.
Yes, let's do that! Fifty YEARS of data.....suggests that yes, indeed,
it is correct.

And when taken against the
apparent liberal slant, which would then conversely imply that liberals are the
opposite of conservatives, and let's look at these elements:

Fear. No, not fear, respect. Respect is something that liberals know little of.
Indeed many long standing traditions and institutions are all comoing under
criticism by liberals, who do not understand the need for honoring traditions.

snip the crap

Dave


Provide one shred of evidence, such as fifty years worth of data, like
the original post, that backs all of your claims about liberals.

" Tuuk" wrote in message ...
Hey,,
Somebody needs to fiscally responsibly run the country or other countries. I
mean your socialist friends would spend their way into poverty and end up
with nothing. If you dont like the way the country is running, just sit back
in your arm chair, collect your welfare and go play bingo. Leave the big
things to those who know how to do them better. If not for you, for the sake
of the entire nation's survival.

Really? As I recall, eight years under Clinton......fantastic economy.
Reagan? Economy sucked. Bush I? Economy sucked. Bush II? Economy was
driven into the ground in a hell of a hurry.

Fiscal responsibility, indeed!

"NOYB" wrote in message rthlink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
It had the whiff of parody. Psychologists dissecting the conservative
brain?

The authors also maintain they're not judgmental. Labeling
conservatives" less integratively complex," isn't precisely the same
as saying they're simple- minded. It merely means conservatives
aren't compelled to jump through complex, intellectual hoops to
justify their relatively black-and-white view of the world.


That's the beauty of being able to see things in black and white. There's
no need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops to justify anything or
reach a rationale conclusion. The answers to many of the World's "complex"
problems are always so painfully obvious to a conservative. What frustrates
us most is why liberals have such a hard time with logic and reason.

If you're really an engineer, JimDandy, then you'd know that *everything*
can be seen as black and white if you break it down into small enough
elements. Fluid mechanics and finite element analysis are a couple of
perfect engineering examples proving that the world really *is* black or
white...even the grey shades are just teeny-tiny black and white pixels.

Yes, but the thing is, the smaller the elements, the more the "whole"
is diluted. Just because something can (and you're correct, anything
CAN be) broken down into elementary analysis, doesn't mean that it's
NOT complex!

"NOYB" wrote in message rthlink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
Stolen from the internet:


A Frank Study on What Makes a Political Liberal
You've probably heard about the Berkeley study done with your tax
dollars on
what makes a political conservative. Here are the factors they
identified:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

Funny enough, I had been doing my own study about what makes a political
liberal. I think mine was much more efficient, because I traced it to a
single factor:

* They're f'ing morons

As evidence of this finding, just listen to any liberal. Ever read
anything
from Noam Chomsky? What a dumbass. Ever seen an article in The Nation?
You
can almost imagine the drool stains on the original copy of whomever
wrote
it. Heard Michael Moore speak? Than man is fat and ugly! While that
doesn't
prove or disprove my theory, he's also a nitwit, which goes with my
findings.

And ever see a bunch of liberals get together for a protest? It's like a
whole gaggle of retards! You almost expect, that with that much
stupidity in
one area, it will collapse upon itself and from a logic black hole,
sucking
in all sense that gets near it.

And then there is liberal Hollywood where people are about as dumb as
you
can be without forgetting to breathe. It's like that to get into
Hollywood
you need to take an intelligence test, and they'll only let you in if it
comes up negative.

Then there are liberal congressmen and women. I've seen them argue on
C-SPAN, and they're so moronic I want to hit them with rocks (there's
that
aggression).

Well, I think my study was pretty thorough on what makes a liberal, but
what
I really want to find is how to cure it. Liberals seems to protect their
idiocy by forming some sort of force field of pure stupidity, a force
field
so strong that logic can't penetrate it. What can penetrate it, though,
is a
large stick. Such an item is known to the scientific community as a
"whomp'n
stick".

What I want to find out is if by whomp'n a liberal whenever he says
something stupid, can I train him away from liberalism through pure pain
avoidance. My theory is that it will cause conservatism as defined by
the
Berkeley study:

* Fear and aggression - Fear of a whomp'n
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity - "Are you going to whomp me or
not?"
* Uncertainty avoidance - "I'll stay quiet so I don't get whomped."
* Need for cognitive closure - "Someone patch up this head wound."
* Terror management - "I'll crouch in the corner and be quiet so the
scary
man doesn't whomp me."

So there is the study: will a group of liberal who gets whomped have
more
converts to conservatism than a control group with no whomp'n.

Ahh... screw the control group; I'm going to whomp 'em both.

Now all I need is millions in a government grant and a stick fit for
whomp'n.

Oh, and I'll need liberal volunteers. The Berkeley scientists from the
previous study are sure free to help out in this one.

WHOMP! WHOMP!

WHERE did you get such horse****?

NPR. :-)

Bull****. Purely made up, doesn't exist. But then again, conservatives
ARE good at making up things...just look at Rush, the world's biggest
liar.