NOYB wrote:
"Public schools, universities, and mental health clinics", eh? I guess
it's
true...those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

And was answered with:

Another truly phobic reply. Conservatives don't like those very
teachers that taught them. Why? Well, to be a teacher, and continue to
learn, you need to be open minded.

And then he re-replied with:

Yeah...so open-minded that your brain falls out.


Pathetic. Really.

"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.

Where did you graduate from? Anyplace with nearly the distinction of
UC Berkeley? Or DID you graduate?

Mark Browne wrote:

snip
Authoritarianism. This boils down to the basics of human nature. Liberals
believe that
people are all basically good, and if given the right opportunities, they
will do the
right thing. Conservatives believe that there are truly "evil" people in
the world who,
if given the opportunity, will rob you blind, or worse. Hence the need for
an "authority"
to keep those who would cause harm to others, in a place where this cannot
happen. The
opposite to authority is anarchy, which seems to be where liberals want to
be, although
I honestly don't think that they have thouroughly analyzed the scope of
that mindset, or
the implications.
snip
One of my biggest problems with authority is that it attracts the few truly
"evil" to the position.

You are 100% on the money with that observation Mark.


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.

The founding fathers on our constitiution recognized this tendancy, and
that's why they created our system of checks and balances. That's also
why we have things like "term limits". I noticed that Bill Clinton, of
all people, has been making noise about removing or modifying that
limit, as of late. I don't see much good to come from that.


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.

Well, I would comment, that if people are too busy living their lives to
see what's happening, then what is happening cannot be all that bad. In
the cases of brutal dictatorships, like Hitler, Stalin, Hussein et. al.,
the population suffered greately under an oppressive regime. I'd say
conditions like this would make people take notice. Now whether they are
in a position to do something about it, is the big question. In most
cases, the answer is no. Most brutal dictators are as paranoid as they
are ruthless, and make sure that any form of resistance, and the means
to carry it out, would be especially hard to come by. Punishment, and
public examples, help to deter the thought of opposing.

Some people like to think of our current administration in the same
light. I think the comparison is ridiculous. If GWB is as bad as the
detractors say, then he'll be history in a little over a year. That's
what makes this country so great.

There is a difference between being decisive, and assertive, with
respect to foreign policy, and being brutal.


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.

Succumbing to the alure of power, is a common human failing. I would
have to ask, why it seems so much more prevalant today, than in times
past? Or is the answer that we were too blissfully naive to notice back
then? Or is the answer that much of this merely perception, fueled by
those who are driven by paranoia and an intrinsic distrust of any sort
of authority?

Dave

Mark Browne wrote:

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.


While there are many theories as to which policies, and what deals have
precipitated much of the hatred and distrust by our Arab neighbors (Much
of this seeming conflict of interest stems from our own churn in
administrations every 4-8 years, with different agendas WRT the middle
east), It is, as they say, water over the dam now. The big question is
what do we do about it?

Do we adopt a position of strength, and attempt to deal with threats? Or
do we adopt a position of appeasement? Do we allow the threat of
terrorism to sway political doctrines? Do we give in to the demands of a
loose group of malcontents? What message does this send?

Can we even fix it? When you have a growing segment of extreme Islam,
who have declared that their purpose is to "cleanse" the globe of
"infidels", how can we hope to strike up a middle ground?

Dave

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

"NOYB" wrote in message
rthlink.net...


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!

It does if you crave simplicity, like Nookular Boy and his army of lemmings.

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 21:55:38 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

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!


Thank you, NOYB. This study was thoughtfully analyzed and well written. It
deserves its own thread. Hope you don't mind.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
" 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!

Actually, if you look at a graph of the stock market and compare it with
parties in office, it's always done significantly better during Democratic
administrations. The Repubs in my PaineWebber office used to hate this
chart. Their stock response to it was "Yeah...well....oh yeah?"

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 15:19:28 -0700, "jps" wrote:

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

Feeble retort to many man years of honest work. Figures your hero's "cure"
for liberals is violence. These days it seems conservatives are finding
violence to be the tool they resort to most frequently.

Hurts their brains to do any of that deep thinking or have any manner of
patience, it's simpler to just kick some ass and figure out what happened
later. Meanwhile, 250 of our kids and countless innocents have paid for it
with their lives.

F'ing idiots.

No more feeble than the Berkely Bull**** so many of you are so enamored with.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
thlink.net...


Great for Berkeley. However, this report was written by 4 left-wing
liberals from Berkeley's Graduate School of Education "Psychology"
Program...which ranks 45th in the nation by the way.

As opposed to right-wing liberals.....

That must be one of the DSM-IV mental disorders that's yet to be named. :-)

"NOYB" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
thlink.net...


Great for Berkeley. However, this report was written by 4 left-wing
liberals from Berkeley's Graduate School of Education "Psychology"
Program...which ranks 45th in the nation by the way.

As opposed to right-wing liberals.....

That must be one of the DSM-IV mental disorders that's yet to be named.
:-)


Well, *YOU* combined the terms "left-wing" and "liberals", numbskull. You
must have the exact same disorder. Or, you managed to buy your way out of
English classes and thus cannot understand redundancy.