T1B

Whenever your conservative acquaintances spew something idiotic from their cakeholes, try to go easy on 'em. It may be that they can't help it:

The brain neurons of liberals and conservatives fire differently when confronted with tough choices, suggesting that some political divides may be hard-wired, according a study released Sunday.

Aristotle may have been more on the mark than he realised when he said that man is by nature a political animal.

Dozens of previous studies have established a strong link between political persuasion and certain personality traits.

Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions. Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances.

The affinity between political views and "cognitive style" has also been shown to be heritable, handed down from parents to children, said the study, published in the British journal Nature Neuroscience.

Click the link for the whole story.

Not an unexpected reply. In fact, I considered adding, "Pure twaddle. Sin, mvscal" to the end of my post, but figured I'd let you speak for yourself.

The brain neurons of liberals and conservatives fire differently...
Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity

Ahhh, that’s what causes them to slap bumper stickers directly on the paint of their Volvos.

Smackie Chan wrote:...and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances.

When you have five kids by five different fathers, you'd BETTER be able to adapt on the fly.

OCmike wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:...and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances.

When you have five kids by five different fathers, you'd BETTER be able to adapt on the fly.

I only have two kids, and they're both by the same father.

Sort of screws up your theory.

OCmike wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:...and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances.

When you have five kids by five different fathers, you'd BETTER be able to adapt on the fly.

Women who have 5 kids by 5 fathers are generally apolitical types and don't bother to vote. The same can be said about the "fathers" in question.

Mikey wrote:

OCmike wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:...and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances.

When you have five kids by five different fathers, you'd BETTER be able to adapt on the fly.

I only have two kids, and they're both by the same father.

Sort of screws up your theory.

You're not part of the demographic that I was referring to. Besides, just because YOU don't have a particular social issue that millions do, does not change the fact that it exists for them.

Women who have 5 kids by 5 fathers are generally apolitical types and don't bother to vote. The same can be said about the "fathers" in question.

We weren't talking about voters, we were talking about those who lean right or left.

OCmike wrote:

Women who have 5 kids by 5 fathers are generally apolitical types and don't bother to vote. The same can be said about the "fathers" in question.

We weren't talking about voters, we were talking about those who lean right or left.

They still don't count, as these bitches lean in any direction the dick comes from.

I don't know what to make of this.

My mother is a liberal and my father was a conservative which ultimately made me a moderate. I did do some thinking on my own when I was in college and leaned towards being more of a conservative because of all the super liberal fuck faces I had to deal with while in school. After school, I changed back to who I was before going to college.

I probably have to credit my parents for what political stances I take today. I'm sure if I was raised in a house with a one-sided view of things, then I probably would have ended up just the same. This is probably the same case with anyone who were raised by two parents.

OCmike wrote:

Women who have 5 kids by 5 fathers are generally apolitical types and don't bother to vote. The same can be said about the "fathers" in question.

We weren't talking about voters, we were talking about those who lean right or left.

The next crack addicted welfare mother I see spouting off about anything other than her baby momma drama will be the first. I used to do voter registration drives in some of the roughest parts of Rochester. The kind of places where a request to fill out a voter registration was sometimes countered by an offer to sell me some weed or "whatever it is you need". Seriously, people in the hood could give a shit about politics. Nor do they lean left or right. They are solidly in the "who gives a fuck" column with Sirfindafold.

I have to disagree with this. On the surface, these hoodlums don't give a shit about politics, but they do have views and opinions just like everyone else; and they are involved whether they want to be or not. Welfare is a serious part of the ghetto and when the gubment stops giving handouts to one of these "buyers", then the dealers will want to know what is up. The hood is looking for handouts so "they can live to see another day". If that is not a political issue, then I don't know what is.

RumpleForeskin wrote:I have to disagree with this. On the surface, these hoodlums don't give a shit about politics, but they do have views and opinions just like everyone else; and they are involved whether they want to be or not. Welfare is a serious part of the ghetto and when the gubment stops giving handouts to one of these "buyers", then the dealers will want to know what is up. The hood is looking for handouts so "they can live to see another day". If that is not a political issue, then I don't know what is.

If poor people voted their interests, you wouldn't have a Republican President and you wouldn't have had a Republican Congress for 12 years. If they cared so much about those welfare handouts, they would have been at the ballot box protecting them for the last 30 years the way old middle class and rich people in general protect their welfare handouts. Again, I've done the voter registration drives, broken down voter turnout numbers, ran phone banks and done just about every other activity associated with street level politics. Have you?

Didn't think so. Trust me, they don't give a fuck.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote: Trust me, they don't give a fuck.

Of course they don't. They just run out their so-called activists to claim that 'dey be disemafranchise.'

They don't run out shit. The "activists" represent their own interests and are hardly representative of the poor they purport to serve. The mindset of the poor and truly disenfranchised (by their own actions) is one of apathy and resignation to their fate.

Nature or Nurture? Our own study settled this years ago.

Sin,

BSmack wrote: Trust me, they don't give a fuck.

There is a fundamental difference between giving a fuck and being ignorant. Sure, they give a fuck, but do not know what it takes to get these handouts. They're hoodlums for a reason and I am willing to put all of my money on stupidity being the main reason.

RumpleForeskin wrote:

BSmack wrote: Trust me, they don't give a fuck.

There is a fundamental difference between giving a fuck and being ignorant. Sure, they give a fuck, but do not know what it takes to get these handouts. They're hoodlums for a reason and I am willing to put all of my money on stupidity being the main reason.

You're all over the place. We're talking about your average poor person, not criminals or thugs. The two are not mutually inclusive. Though it may seem like that to you when you watch your local 6PM newscast.

BSmack wrote:You're all over the place. We're talking about your average poor person, not criminals or thugs. The two are not mutually inclusive. Though it may seem like that to you when you watch your local 6PM newscast.

Are you telling me that the average poor person who has a clean record choses to be poor and indifferent? Make sense.

BSmack wrote:

RumpleForeskin wrote:I have to disagree with this. On the surface, these hoodlums don't give a shit about politics, but they do have views and opinions just like everyone else; and they are involved whether they want to be or not. Welfare is a serious part of the ghetto and when the gubment stops giving handouts to one of these "buyers", then the dealers will want to know what is up. The hood is looking for handouts so "they can live to see another day". If that is not a political issue, then I don't know what is.

If poor people voted their interests, you wouldn't have a Republican President and you wouldn't have had a Republican Congress for 12 years. If they cared so much about those welfare handouts, they would have been at the ballot box protecting them for the last 30 years the way old middle class and rich people in general protect their welfare handouts. Again, I've done the voter registration drives, broken down voter turnout numbers, ran phone banks and done just about every other activity associated with street level politics. Have you?

Didn't think so. Trust me, they don't give a fuck.

You're talking about the absolute bottom rung of the ladder, or at least pretty close to it. I'll go one farther than that: the working poor are in much the same circumstance.

I used to work part-time at a supermarket while I was in law school to help pay for expenses. Occasionally I'd try to engage my fellow co-workers in political discourse. Most were in the camp of "my vote doesn't make a difference, so why bother?". Of the rest, the overwhelming majority tended to vote Republican. Seems they had bought into the Republican scare tactics that the Democrats would raise their taxes, take away their guns, etc. And this was a supermarket that was unionized, so they had access to sources of information other than AM talk radio.

If poor people voted their interests, there'd be pretty close to a permanent Democratic majority in this country. They don't, so there isn't.

RumpleForeskin wrote:

BSmack wrote:You're all over the place. We're talking about your average poor person, not criminals or thugs. The two are not mutually inclusive. Though it may seem like that to you when you watch your local 6PM newscast.

Are you telling me that the average poor person who has a clean record choses to be poor and indifferent? Make sense.

That is exactly what I'm telling you. And their non-participation in the process proves it. Just show me a single poor urban area with a even a 40% voter turnout in an off year election. I dare you.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:You're talking about the absolute bottom rung of the ladder, or at least pretty close to it. I'll go one farther than that: the working poor are in much the same circumstance.

I used to work part-time at a supermarket while I was in law school to help pay for expenses. Occasionally I'd try to engage my fellow co-workers in political discourse. Most were in the camp of "my vote doesn't make a difference, so why bother?". Of the rest, the overwhelming majority tended to vote Republican. Seems they had bought into the Republican scare tactics that the Democrats would raise their taxes, take away their guns, etc. And this was a supermarket that was unionized, so they had access to sources of information other than AM talk radio.

If poor people voted their interests, there'd be pretty close to a permanent Democratic majority in this country. They don't, so there isn't.

It wouldn't just be a Democratic majority. It would be a true progressive Democratic majority. If the poor and middle class voted their pocketbook, the term "Yellow Dog Democrat" would be as relevant as the term "Whig" or "Know Nothing".

And don't even get me started on the sad state of unions in this county. The kindest thing I can say about the leadership of unions as a whole is that they are hopelessly lacking in the vision and guts needed to defend workers in a global economy.

BSmack wrote:That is exactly what I'm telling you.

Actually, Bri, I would have objected to his question on one basis:

RumpleForeskin wrote:Are you telling me that the average poor person who has a clean record choses to be poor and indifferent?

Does the average poor person choose to be indifferent? From a political standpoint, yes. Poor? No.

In fairness, there is some level of political indifference across the economic spectrum. It just happens to be more common and marked among the poor.

I agree that the demogrpahic of the more densely inner-city areas would vote democrat, but the less dense rural areas of poor folks would probably vote the other way.

I wasn't talking about voting though, I was just talking about these people giving two shits about the political areas that effect them. Terry answered it better, but I would think the last 2 elections in '00 and '04 would change these people's minds because of how close the outcome was. If not, then they are fucking stupid. What better example could be provided to them that every vote counts?

RumpleForeskin wrote:I wasn't talking about voting though, I was just talking about these people giving two shits about the political areas that effect them. Terry answered it better, but I would think the last 2 elections in '00 and '04 would change these people's minds because of how close the outcome was. If not, then they are fucking stupid. What better example could be provided to them that every vote counts?

Uhhh, a Presidential election under a different system, perhaps?

I don't dispute that the '00 and '04 Presidential elections were both extremely close. But what we have, rather than one nationwide Presidential election, is essentially 50 simultaneous statewide Presidential elections. While the elections were extremely close in some states, that wasn't necessarily the case in others.

Yeah, the "my vote doesn't count" school of thought is still alive and well, and that can't be chalked up entirely to stupidity.

mvscal wrote:There is a third option and it is the most likely:

Your "study" is pure bullshit.

You've obviously made up your mind without any examination, but a little additional reading for the less dogmatic can be found:

http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dean/20070905.html
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Mikey wrote:
I only have two kids, and they're both by the same father.

Yeah, this is him

Sort of screws up your theory.

Yeah, I'd have thought you'd be a much better mommy than you turned out to be

Smackie Chan wrote:Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions. Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances.

In general, I've found this to be true. "pure bullshit" study or not. Although living in the heart of Liberal Land, I can tell you the liberals here are just as staunch and "no nonsense" about their beliefs than any conservative I've met; and as a result, don't show any greater propensity to think with "ambiguity" and "complexity."

Quite frankly, I think both parties are such at war with each other that it's consumed them, and so "tolerance" really doesn't exist from either group. They're both stuck in their ways and refuse to be budged.

mvscal wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:In general, I've found this to be true. "pure bullshit" study or not.

In general, I've found this to be more a function of age than politics.

[m2] The Truth [/m2]

This so-called study is a false dichotomy from the start. Abstractions such as "liberal" and "conservative" are as fake as Hillary's penis. They're there, alright, demanding and filling attention, but such entertainment should not distract you from the real action--you know, the coup of your country by the malignant Bush clan, et al...



Karl Rove poises for his next campaign

http://www.chrishiggins.com/blog/archiv ... insect.jpg

EDIT by TWIS Go ahead and click the link for the thread stretching pic.

The suspect, Carlos Hartmann, 41, of Tecumseh, Mich., has confessed to the Sept. 8 killing

I'm sure the Wolverines second consecutive loss at home was a key contributor to Mr. Hartmann's unstable frame of mind.

Okay, one nutjob goes postal and....what, this somehow justifies the demented catastrophe of invading and destroying an entire country on a policy of outright lies, smears, and scare tactics?

What's this phony "either/or" bullshit you rely on?

As the yes men, Petreaus and Crocker, insist on more carnage and despoilment of millions of innocent people, Bush is hiding in his empty office, the rats having jumped ship.

Really, what are you defending...and why?

Death to all Arabs... Start there and I'll tell you what race of shit that needs to be whacked next... bitch. Killing you bitch, is a good foundation no matta what stinky skin you wear.