Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
OT The Conservative Brain
"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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
OT The Conservative Brain
"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****? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
OT The Conservative Brain
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
OT The Conservative Brain
"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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
OT The Conservative Brain
"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. :-) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
OT The Conservative Brain
"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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
OT The Conservative Brain
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
OT The Conservative Brain
" 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! |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
OT The Conservative Brain
"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! |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
OT The Conservative Brain
"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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|