OT The Conservative Brain
 

Tuuk wrote:

No, don't be a baffoon, 9-11 was not GWB's fault, and he did do the right
thing.

Bush was captain of the ship of state at the time of 9-11. He is
responsible.

As for "doing the right thing," Bush is clueless.


Look at the situation in Canada, Ontario where all the liberals and
NDP who were bought out by the teachers and the strikes that damaged many
students year. A Conservative leader arose and cleaned up years of messes
that the liberals created.

Oh, right.





--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

OT The Conservative Brain
 

Did you go to a Jesuit College? The Jesuits excel at teaching critical
thinking and for having strong liberal arts program.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"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.
:-)

I don't believe the DSM is required reading at dental trade school.

Really? Do you *believe* studies that show almost 3/4 of patients
presenting with atypical facial pain (non-odontogenic in nature), have a
specific psychiatric disorder by DSM-IV criteria? Do you *believe* in
the
etiological relevance of specific phobias (ie--dental phobia) to panic
disorder with agoraphobia (PDA)?

Do you *believe* you have no idea what you're talking about?

PS-I liked your "trade school" dig, however. :-)



You've never read the DSM-IV or any of its predecessors.

As for my "dig" at trade school, I suppose the Jesuits have been a major
influence in my life. I went to college to help expand my mind and to
get a liberal arts education, not to learn a trade. Different strokes, eh?

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

OT The Conservative Brain
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"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.
:-)

I don't believe the DSM is required reading at dental trade school.

Really? Do you *believe* studies that show almost 3/4 of patients
presenting with atypical facial pain (non-odontogenic in nature), have a
specific psychiatric disorder by DSM-IV criteria? Do you *believe* in
the
etiological relevance of specific phobias (ie--dental phobia) to panic
disorder with agoraphobia (PDA)?

Do you *believe* you have no idea what you're talking about?

PS-I liked your "trade school" dig, however. :-)



You've never read the DSM-IV or any of its predecessors.

Dentists are many times the front-line agents in the recognition of anxiety,
eating, personality, and especially substance-related disorders. *Of
course* we've been instructed in the recognition of disorders defined by the
DSM-IV criteria.

As an aside...my favorite disorder is NPD...because it's sooooo easy and
sooooo much fun to push the buttons of a Narcissist.




As for my "dig" at trade school, I suppose the Jesuits have been a major
influence in my life. I went to college to help expand my mind and to
get a liberal arts education, not to learn a trade. Different strokes, eh?

I went to college to prepare me with the skills that would allow me to
obtain a meaningful, well-paying job immediately upon graduation. I use my
*own time* to expand my mind and get a liberal arts education...'cause you
don't need to spend money on a formal education to achieve either of those.

As for your "different strokes" comment...you've obviously been spending too
much time listening to Joycelyn Elders.

OT The Conservative Brain
 

"Bill Cole" wrote in message
news:m5_Xa.50789$Oz4.14138@rwcrnsc54...
Did you go to a Jesuit College? The Jesuits excel at teaching critical
thinking

They obviously failed with Harry.

OT The Conservative Brain
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
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.

Nice deducing there John. Compare PhDs putting man years of work into
original research, compilation, theory and conclusion and compare that to a
****ing moron who thinks beating liberals up is the answer.

That says more about your utter blindness than perhaps anything I've heard
from you. What happened to the scientific method (perhaps you should try
refuting the research and conclusions) and how could you possibly endorse
people who're promoting violence?

More simple answers for simple people. You're just the kind of fool those
PhDs are writing about.

OT The Conservative Brain
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"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?"


Well, there's a very good explaination for this trend. Usually, it takes
time for the economy to "turn around". Fiscally responsible policies,
put in place by republicans, usually do not fully "kick in" until after
their term is over. Since people are usually not patient enough, they
can be swayed to vote with their wallets, and a democrat can get in when
times get tough. But as things turn around, it's usually the policies of
the previous administration, which are normally responsible.

The other theory, is that the economy is completely independant from the
effects of politics. Little or nothing a political figurehead can do,
will affect the economy to any large degree. But perception often being
stronger than reality for some people, they often think that politics
make a bigger difference, and the political trends are merely
reactionary.

Dave

OT The Conservative Brain
 

"NOYB" wrote in message rthlink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"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?

BSME 1993 Purdue University (I took the EIT...does that make me an
"engineer"?)

Uh, no, it makes you an EIT.

DDS 1999 Indiana University School of Dentistry.


*You* decide if Purdue's Mechanical Engineering program qualifies as "near
the distinction" of Berkeley.

Purdue is a fine school. I have a fellow engineer who is a Purdue
grad. He also took grad classes at Berkeley. Why? better classes for
his particular interests. Now, please show how Purdue is a better
school than Berkeley. And Indiana U. is not even in the running!

OT The Conservative Brain
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"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.
:-)

I don't believe the DSM is required reading at dental trade school.

Really? Do you *believe* studies that show almost 3/4 of patients
presenting with atypical facial pain (non-odontogenic in nature), have a
specific psychiatric disorder by DSM-IV criteria? Do you *believe* in
the
etiological relevance of specific phobias (ie--dental phobia) to panic
disorder with agoraphobia (PDA)?

Do you *believe* you have no idea what you're talking about?

PS-I liked your "trade school" dig, however. :-)



You've never read the DSM-IV or any of its predecessors.

Dentists are many times the front-line agents in the recognition of anxiety,
eating, personality, and especially substance-related disorders. *Of
course* we've been instructed in the recognition of disorders defined by the
DSM-IV criteria.

As an aside...my favorite disorder is NPD...because it's sooooo easy and
sooooo much fun to push the buttons of a Narcissist.

Mine too. But we wouldn't know any NPD candidates on this newsgroup
would we? ;-) I also enjoy pushing the buttons of those with APD. The
internet is full of many "socially challenged" people. Many of whom use
this as their only social outlet. Typically their demeanor and attitude,
is as easy as a lighthouse to spot.

Dave

OT The Conservative Brain
 

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

Oh, really? Bu****es are hoping to get re-elected JUST on tragedy.
What else do they have? Economy? I guess they could hope to get
re-elected on the premise that they put us back into the dark ages
with the Patriot Act.

OT The Conservative Brain
 

thunder wrote:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 13:14:50 +0000, Dave Hall wrote:

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.

I've never understood the reasoning behind term limits. If we are
doing our job as an electorate, an ineffective legislature would be
gone. In a democracy, we do get the leadership we deserve. It
seems to me, all term limits do is limit our choices, in the rare
case we actually get an effective and honorable leader.


You bring up a good point. The reason for term limits is so that no one
can "monopolize" the government for longer than their term limit. This
is supposedly done so that someone cannot be "corrupted" by years of
accumulated political "connections", and the overwhelming tendancy
toward favoratism, that these "connections" often lead to.

Opponents bring up the cases where we get a (increasingly rare)
politician, who becomes polpular, and his policies are effective and
positive for our society. The "he's doing a great job, why should he be
forced to step down" scenario. If we, the citizens, are doing our civic
duty, and making responsible choices, and the system is relatively free
of corruption and "dirty" tricks, in theory we would be able to remove
those who are not doing a good job. The problem is that most of the
people who even bother to vote, are often not the most informed people,
and they decide their vote based on superficial "qualities", and the
sound byte issues that are spoon fed to them.

I guess what term limits really mean, is that we don't trust our own
system to take care of itself, and that we need an additional "safety
valve".

Dave