|
OT The Conservative Brain
It had the whiff of parody. Psychologists dissecting the conservative
brain? A press release from UC Berkeley 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 lack of "integrative complexity" in thought and speech. Hardly a flattering portrait. The release pushed further, noting that "disparate conservatives" such as Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh each preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality. The research is serious scholarship, insist the authors from Stanford, U.C. Berkeley and the University of Maryland synthesized 88 previously published samples involving 22,818 participants from 12 countries into 10 "meta-analytic calculations." The study starts by assuming that people adopt a belief system such as conservatism partly to satisfy some psychological need. "This does not mean that conservatism is pathological," the authors hasten to note, "or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational or unprincipled." As Seinfeld might add, "not that there's anything wrong with that . . .. ." 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. One of the researchers' methods involved analyzing political speeches and judicial opinions on the basis of structural complexity. Conservatives thought and spoke more simply -- hence President Bush's observation "Look, my job isn't to nuance." |
OT The Conservative Brain
"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. Bingo! |
OT The Conservative Brain
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. 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. Liberals seemingly have forgotten the lessons of history, for which many of these traditions have emerged, and instead are hell bent on reliving these lessons again. Aggression. Hmmm. There's nothing more aggressive than a "liberal with a cause", even if they cannot tell you the specifics of why they are protesting, or offer up any counterpoints or alternative solutions. Dogmatism. It's helpful to once again point out that since liberals do not respect time honored institutions such as religion, they consider those who do, and their faith, as "dogmatic". Indeed, religion has been the source of many wars and massacres throughout history, but it has also been the foundation for a code of morality, and behavior, by which a civilized society needs to function cohesively. 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. Tolerance of Inequality. Wake up! While we are all human beings, that's about as far as our equality goes. If you give people the freedom to make their own life choices, you will have some who will go on to achieve great things. You will also have those who will achieve little more than the creation of another generation of dependants. What liberals call "equality", is artificial. A government mandated "leveler" which takes away from those who achieve, to prop up those who don't. While this may make a bleeding heart feel good, the results are empty, as the people they helped are no more motivated, and in fact are more likely to become even more dependant on their "help". You have sentanced those people to a life of depandance, and medicocrity. Sometimes a proverbial "kick in the pants" is ultimately more helpful than throwing money. Call it "tough love". Intolerance of Ambiguity. It's hard to make clear and decisive policies when the issues are clouded by ambiguities. The idea of deliberate ambiguity defies logic. But logic is the bane of the liberal mind. There is no place for ambiguities when you are doing such things as balancing budgets, or passing laws which affect many people. Most issues can be boiled down to concrete elements, which can be dealt with effectively. Liberals, on the other hand, prefer to muddle down issues, with vagueness and ambiguity, as they tend to distrust anything traditional, and ideas which are based on fact. It's hard to argue with logic and facts. Since liberals are often motivated by emotional "needs" rather than rational logic, this tendancy toward ambiguity, tends to become a sort of defense mechanism for them. Resistance to change. Sometimes change is good. Sometimes change isn't. There are extremes on both sides. Generally speaking, things which are new, are not necessarily better, and change for change sake, is not a rational justification for doing so. Once again, liberals rally around this ideal as yet another attack on the foundations of tradition, which they abhor on many levels. They're like the kid who can't cope with the rules of the game of baseball, so they want to change them, rather than learning why the rules are there, and the wisdom of those who created them. Lack of "integrative complexity" in thought and speech. This is purely subjective. On the one hand, I could counter that the deliberate introduction of "integrative complexity", is the liberal term for intellectual snobbery. The deliberate "talking down" to constituents, (the so-called "Al Gore Syndrome"). On the other hand, taking this newsgroup as a representative sample of the two political ideologies, I see little distinctive difference in the relative "complexity" in the arguments presented. Guys like Chuck, Mark, and a few others, attempt to make good solid points, in defense of their "side". Then there are guys like Harry, jps, and the latest incarnation of JimDandy, who offer up little more than adhominem barbs, and the cut and pasted tripe from other equally clueless writers. The same goes for the conservative side. There are those who look at the simple sound byte issue, and those who look at the "bigger" picture. The release pushed further, noting that "disparate conservatives" such as Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh each preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality. Funny thing about the past, while there were members of special interest groups, who may have felt disadvantaged, by and large, the rest of the population did a whole lot better. Dave |
OT The Conservative Brain
"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. |
OT The Conservative Brain
NOYB wrote:
"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. Indeed, conservatives must find a great deal of solace in their ignorance and simple-mindedness. W -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
OT The Conservative Brain
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "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. Indeed, conservatives must find a great deal of solace in their ignorance and simple-mindedness. More like satisfaction with our clairvoyance. |
OT The Conservative Brain
NOYB wrote:
"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. It's too bad your mind is rusted shut. National Rankings & Source Berkeley ranks first nationally in the number of graduate programs in the top 10 in their fields. (97% of Berkeley's programs made the top 10 list.) National Research Council Berkeley ranks first nationally in the number of "distinguished" programs for the scholarship of the faculty [32 programs] National Research Council Awards Held by Faculty Current listed first All-Time listed second American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellows 100 125 American Academy of Arts and Sciences Fellows 216 n/a Fields Medal in Mathematics 2 4 Fulbright Scholars 81 131 Guggenheim Fellows 138 152 Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigators 9 9 MacArthur Fellows 19 28 National Academy of Education 5 7 National Academy of Engineering 86 101 National Academy of Sciences 122 127 National Medal of Science 16 29 National Poet Laureates 1 1 National Science Foundation Young Investigators Awards 61 88 Nobel Prize 8 18 Polk Award in Journalism 3 3 Pulitzer Prizes 3 5 Sloan Fellows (young researchers) 62 92 Wolf Prizes in agriculture, mathematics, chemistry, physics, medicine and the arts 7 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You smug, right-wing Konservative asses are a trip. -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
OT The Conservative Brain
"NOYB" wrote in message
thlink.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "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. Indeed, conservatives must find a great deal of solace in their ignorance and simple-mindedness. More like satisfaction with our clairvoyance. So, you believe in black arts eh? Do you suppose that's what's employed to conger Bush Administration fiscal plans? That'd make sense. |
OT The Conservative Brain
jps wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message thlink.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "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. Indeed, conservatives must find a great deal of solace in their ignorance and simple-mindedness. More like satisfaction with our clairvoyance. So, you believe in black arts eh? Do you suppose that's what's employed to conger Bush Administration fiscal plans? That'd make sense. It's been fun watching Tom Ridge play "voodoo security" the last week or so. Let's see...we'll heighten the security alert to make Americans uneasy, then we'll tell them we don't need as many sky marshals as we have, then we'll tell Americans to be prepared for a skyjacking... Has there been a more incompetent administration in the last 50 years? I don't think so. -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
OT The Conservative Brain
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "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. It's too bad your mind is rusted shut. National Rankings & Source Berkeley ranks first nationally in the number of graduate programs in the top 10 in their fields. 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. Here's how Berkeley describes the graduate "Psychology" program: Established in 1965, the program has prepared students for employment in public schools, universities, mental health clinics, and a variety of work settings "Public schools, universities, and mental health clinics", eh? I guess it's true...those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. |
OT The Conservative Brain
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 20:55:14 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
More like satisfaction with our clairvoyance. Sept 11 -- 9/11 Sept 11 -- 9/11 You knew about it? Treason! High Crimes and Misdemeanors!!! Shame on you. -- Q |
OT The Conservative Brain
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! |
OT The Conservative Brain
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. "basskisser" wrote in message om... It had the whiff of parody. Psychologists dissecting the conservative brain? A press release from UC Berkeley 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 lack of "integrative complexity" in thought and speech. Hardly a flattering portrait. The release pushed further, noting that "disparate conservatives" such as Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh each preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality. The research is serious scholarship, insist the authors from Stanford, U.C. Berkeley and the University of Maryland synthesized 88 previously published samples involving 22,818 participants from 12 countries into 10 "meta-analytic calculations." The study starts by assuming that people adopt a belief system such as conservatism partly to satisfy some psychological need. "This does not mean that conservatism is pathological," the authors hasten to note, "or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational or unprincipled." As Seinfeld might add, "not that there's anything wrong with that . . . ." 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. One of the researchers' methods involved analyzing political speeches and judicial opinions on the basis of structural complexity. Conservatives thought and spoke more simply -- hence President Bush's observation "Look, my job isn't to nuance." |
OT The Conservative Brain
"NOYB" wrote in message
thlink.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. |
OT The Conservative Brain
Tuuk wrote:
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. "basskisser" wrote in message om... It had the whiff of parody. Psychologists dissecting the conservative brain? A press release from UC Berkeley 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 lack of "integrative complexity" in thought and speech. Hardly a flattering portrait. The release pushed further, noting that "disparate conservatives" such as Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh each preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality. The research is serious scholarship, insist the authors from Stanford, U.C. Berkeley and the University of Maryland synthesized 88 previously published samples involving 22,818 participants from 12 countries into 10 "meta-analytic calculations." The study starts by assuming that people adopt a belief system such as conservatism partly to satisfy some psychological need. "This does not mean that conservatism is pathological," the authors hasten to note, "or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational or unprincipled." As Seinfeld might add, "not that there's anything wrong with that . . . ." 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. One of the researchers' methods involved analyzing political speeches and judicial opinions on the basis of structural complexity. Conservatives thought and spoke more simply -- hence President Bush's observation "Look, my job isn't to nuance." Fiscally responsible? Then you surely don't want a Republican in the White House. -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
OT The Conservative Brain
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 17:41:07 +0000, Harry Krause wrote:
It's been fun watching Tom Ridge play "voodoo security" the last week or so. Let's see...we'll heighten the security alert to make Americans uneasy, then we'll tell them we don't need as many sky marshals as we have, then we'll tell Americans to be prepared for a skyjacking... Has there been a more incompetent administration in the last 50 years? I don't think so. They sure do bounce around. It's a little like watching a game of Three Card Monty, only not as slick. |
OT The Conservative Brain
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 17:41:07 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: snippage-my apologies It's been fun watching Tom Ridge play "voodoo security" the last week or so. Let's see...we'll heighten the security alert to make Americans uneasy, then we'll tell them we don't need as many sky marshals as we have, then we'll tell Americans to be prepared for a skyjacking... Has there been a more incompetent administration in the last 50 years? I don't think so. As you already know, these "Security Alerts" are doubly inane. Since 9/11, since Afghanistan, since Iraq, *every* day should be seen as a "high risk" day. Are we going to count on Al-Jazira to predict our security risks??? What a bunch of horse****! If Al-Qaida is going to hit us, they aren't likely to put it on the radio or TV first. "Al-Jazira stated today that you should call your mother." HAR!!! More frightening is the thought that the Bush Administration needs every diversion that they can get, because the pacification of Iraq gets more deadly, and more uncontrollable, every day. The absolute certainty of WMD's has become "murky intelligence". Saddam's certain nuclear- sorry, noocular program has become an "intelligence error". The only saving grace at this point is some sort of "liberation" for the Iraqi people, although loyalty will temporarily lie with whoever gives them food, electricity, and water. A hungry man does not care about Democracy, he wants to eat, and to feed his family, and he does not care who is running the show. Are we delusional (just a question) in thinking that a society that has been fuedal for 3,000 years will suddenly embrace Democracy? The jubilation at the toppling of Saddam's statue has been replaced by demonstrations and RPG's. For those that remember, and for those that don't, it is becoming like Vietnam. Daily death counts in a country that we do not, and cannot, control, populated by people that we do not understand. My utmost respect and appreciation goes to the members of our various armed forces, who place their lives on the line every day, to defend their country. I also pray daily that our leadership is worthy of such sacrifice. My respectful condolences go to those who have lost loved ones in this war. noah Courtesy of Lee Yeaton, See the boats of rec.boats www.TheBayGuide.com/rec.boats |
OT The Conservative Brain
noah wrote:
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 17:41:07 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: snippage-my apologies It's been fun watching Tom Ridge play "voodoo security" the last week or so. Let's see...we'll heighten the security alert to make Americans uneasy, then we'll tell them we don't need as many sky marshals as we have, then we'll tell Americans to be prepared for a skyjacking... Has there been a more incompetent administration in the last 50 years? I don't think so. As you already know, these "Security Alerts" are doubly inane. Since 9/11, since Afghanistan, since Iraq, *every* day should be seen as a "high risk" day. Are we going to count on Al-Jazira to predict our security risks??? What a bunch of horse****! If Al-Qaida is going to hit us, they aren't likely to put it on the radio or TV first. "Al-Jazira stated today that you should call your mother." HAR!!! More frightening is the thought that the Bush Administration needs every diversion that they can get, because the pacification of Iraq gets more deadly, and more uncontrollable, every day. The absolute certainty of WMD's has become "murky intelligence". Saddam's certain nuclear- sorry, noocular program has become an "intelligence error". The only saving grace at this point is some sort of "liberation" for the Iraqi people, although loyalty will temporarily lie with whoever gives them food, electricity, and water. A hungry man does not care about Democracy, he wants to eat, and to feed his family, and he does not care who is running the show. Are we delusional (just a question) in thinking that a society that has been fuedal for 3,000 years will suddenly embrace Democracy? The jubilation at the toppling of Saddam's statue has been replaced by demonstrations and RPG's. For those that remember, and for those that don't, it is becoming like Vietnam. Daily death counts in a country that we do not, and cannot, control, populated by people that we do not understand. My utmost respect and appreciation goes to the members of our various armed forces, who place their lives on the line every day, to defend their country. I also pray daily that our leadership is worthy of such sacrifice. My respectful condolences go to those who have lost loved ones in this war. noah 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. -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
OT The Conservative Brain
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. -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
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. |
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****? |
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 |
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. |
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. :-) |
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. |
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. |
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! |
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! |
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. |
OT The Conservative Brain
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. |
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. Where did you graduate from? Anyplace with nearly the distinction of UC Berkeley? Or DID you graduate? |
OT The Conservative Brain
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 |
OT The Conservative Brain
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 |
OT The Conservative Brain
"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. |
OT The Conservative Brain
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 |
OT The Conservative Brain
"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?" |
OT The Conservative Brain
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 |
OT The Conservative Brain
"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. :-) |
OT The Conservative Brain
"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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com