OT: political leanings are half genetic



On May 28, 9:49 pm, Ozark Bicycle
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Yikes! Have a preference for right wingnuts like Limbaugh, Cheney and
> Coulter may not be wholly a matter of choice:



Certainly not. But those personalities being in the mainstream show a
societal sickness. They're by no means traditional conservatives, but
canaries showing a societal draw to strict ideology and
authoritarianism. It's something to be worried about. In the US, since
the "Republican Revolution" of the Newt, we've gone from dialog to the
politics of personal destruction. It's been fairly one-sided, due to
the relaxation of the "fairness doctrine" of the media.

I'm a proud liberal, but have no problem appreciating and debating
traditional conservative economic or foreign policy--but the problem
in the US lays in the polarization we've experienced here in the last
twenty years. The left of center has been left toothless, partially
self-inflicted to be sure, and the right has veered to the far far
right without the traditional friendly and tempering dialog that used
to be common in DC and elsewhere.

America is in a deep crisis right now, that's for certain.
Conversation used to contain things like "I disagree, but" or "I
concede your point, but add this" and has devolved to gems like, "Why
do you adore Al Queada?" and "You hate America, why?".

Ugh.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
landotter <[email protected]> wrote:

> On May 28, 9:49 pm, Ozark Bicycle
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Yikes! Have a preference for right wingnuts like Limbaugh, Cheney and
> > Coulter may not be wholly a matter of choice:


Malarkey. If political preference was inherited I'd be a rabid neocon.
 
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> landotter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On May 28, 9:49 pm, Ozark Bicycle
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Yikes! Have a preference for right wingnuts like Limbaugh, Cheney
>>> and Coulter may not be wholly a matter of choice:


> Malarkey. If political preference was inherited I'd be a rabid
> neocon.


What was the original content, a link or something? (The dirt rat and
crude-ark long ago plonked.)

Why was this posted to cycling newsgroups, anyway?

ROTFL
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Yikes! Have a preference for right wingnuts like Limbaugh, Cheney and
> Coulter may not be wholly a matter of choice:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3cmmu9
>
> or, for Nervous Nellies:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/3cmmu9
>
> Scary........ :-o
>


From the article:
,------|Quote|
|
|"Whether you prefer Rush Limbaugh or Keith
|Olbermann has to do with your genes and your
|psychology, according to a new study.
|
|People who are more conscientious and prefer
|order, structure and closure in their lives
|tend to be more conservative, whereas creative
|people who are open to new experiences tend to
|be more politically liberal, says John Jost,
|a psychologist at New York University..."
`------|Unquote|

It took a PhD to figure that out? Geez, anyone could have told you that.

Who funded this research?

\\paul
 
Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
>
> From the article:
> ,------|Quote|
> |
> |"Whether you prefer Rush Limbaugh or Keith
> |Olbermann has to do with your genes and your
> |psychology, according to a new study.
> |
> |People who are more conscientious and prefer
> |order, structure and closure in their lives
> |tend to be more conservative, whereas creative
> |people who are open to new experiences tend to
> |be more politically liberal, says John Jost,
> |a psychologist at New York University..."
> `------|Unquote|
>
> It took a PhD to figure that out? Geez, anyone could have told you that.


Conservatives? Conscientious? On what planet?

I guess if you disregard murdering people, being greedy, obstructing
fair play, being mean, being unforgiving, and a few other little
things like that, then the American Right could be characterized as
conscientious. But not unless.

How many conscientious objectors are right wingers, for instance?

I wonder if this is another instance of political conservatives trying
to destroy the meaning of a word in order to deny its use to their
rivals. See "values", "liberal", "terrorism", "support", "defense",
etc., for examples.

Chalo
 
Paul Myron Hobson wrote:

> From the article:
> ,------|Quote|
>>
>> "Whether you prefer Rush Limbaugh or Keith
>> Olbermann has to do with your genes and your
>> psychology, according to a new study.
>>
>> People who are more conscientious and prefer
>> order, structure and closure in their lives
>> tend to be more conservative, whereas creative
>> people who are open to new experiences tend to
>> be more politically liberal, says John Jost,
>> a psychologist at New York University..."

> `------|Unquote|
>
> It took a PhD to figure that out? Geez, anyone could have told you
> that.
> Who funded this research?


Liberals! LOL
 
On 28 May 2007 21:50:42 -0700, landotter <[email protected]> wrote:

>America is in a deep crisis right now, that's for certain.
>Conversation used to contain things like "I disagree, but" or "I
>concede your point, but add this" and has devolved to gems like, "Why
>do you adore Al Queada?" and "You hate America, why?".

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/17734/1/RealTime-RonPaul.wmv
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Mon, 28 May 2007 23:53:54 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Paul Myron Hobson wrote:


>> Who funded this research?

>
>Liberals! LOL


Sorni's comment pretty much says it all. Anything that he disagrees
with is part of a liberal conspiracy or bias. He adds the LOL, but
it's really his views.

When you add it all up, the sad fact is that to Sorni, reality has a
liberal bias.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On May 29, 12:22 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
> landotter <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On May 28, 9:49 pm, Ozark Bicycle
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Yikes! Have a preference for right wingnuts like Limbaugh, Cheney and
> > > Coulter may not be wholly a matter of choice:

>
> Malarkey. If political preference was inherited I'd be a rabid neocon.


Perhaps your liberal predilection is a recessive gene (?) :)
 
On 28 May 2007 21:50:42 -0700, landotter <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>America is in a deep crisis right now, that's for certain.
>Conversation used to contain things like "I disagree, but" or "I
>concede your point, but add this" and has devolved to gems like, "Why
>do you adore Al Queada?" and "You hate America, why?".


I am hoping that the 2006 elections are indicative that the
"complacent middle" f/k/a "silent majority" has finally woken up to
the fact that the "neo-con Christian fundamentalist conspiracy" is
unable (unwilling?) to govern, has totally screwed up the USA
internally, is a threat to world stability, and will be rejected
utterly in the 2008 presidential election.

We'll see...
 
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in news:465bbc1e$0$16598
[email protected]:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> Malarkey. If political preference was inherited I'd be a rabid
>> neocon.

>
> What was the original content, a link or something? (The dirt rat and
> crude-ark long ago plonked.)
>
> Why was this posted to cycling newsgroups, anyway?
>

Some individuals need to reach out to fellow travellers
for affirmation of their religious beliefs.
 
On May 29, 1:40 am, Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:
> Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
>
> > From the article:
> > ,------|Quote|
> > |
> > |"Whether you prefer Rush Limbaugh or Keith
> > |Olbermann has to do with your genes and your
> > |psychology, according to a new study.
> > |
> > |People who are more conscientious and prefer
> > |order, structure and closure in their lives
> > |tend to be more conservative, whereas creative
> > |people who are open to new experiences tend to
> > |be more politically liberal, says John Jost,
> > |a psychologist at New York University..."
> > `------|Unquote|

>
> > It took a PhD to figure that out? Geez, anyone could have told you that.

>
> Conservatives? Conscientious? On what planet?
>
> I guess if you disregard murdering people, being greedy, obstructing
> fair play, being mean, being unforgiving, and a few other little
> things like that, then the American Right could be characterized as
> conscientious. But not unless.


Shush! Remember, they got the Jebus on their side. He is shiny and
goes round and round! He is magic and makes anything true, as long as
you get all squinty and petulant-like.
 
On May 29, 1:53 am, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
> > From the article:
> > ,------|Quote|

>
> >> "Whether you prefer Rush Limbaugh or Keith
> >> Olbermann has to do with your genes and your
> >> psychology, according to a new study.

>
> >> People who are more conscientious and prefer
> >> order, structure and closure in their lives
> >> tend to be more conservative, whereas creative
> >> people who are open to new experiences tend to
> >> be more politically liberal, says John Jost,
> >> a psychologist at New York University..."

> > `------|Unquote|

>
> > It took a PhD to figure that out? Geez, anyone could have told you
> > that.
> > Who funded this research?

>
> Liberals! LOL


And thus, we have an example of the new three synapse philosophy
that's bringing America down into the shitter. Reason? You don't need
no reason when you can just grunt, point and go "ha ha".
 
On Tue, 29 May 2007 02:19:20 -0400, Paul Myron Hobson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> Yikes! Have a preference for right wingnuts like Limbaugh, Cheney and
>> Coulter may not be wholly a matter of choice:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/3cmmu9
>>
>> or, for Nervous Nellies:
>>
>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/3cmmu9
>>
>> Scary........ :-o
>>

>
> From the article:
>,------|Quote|
>|
>|"Whether you prefer Rush Limbaugh or Keith
>|Olbermann has to do with your genes and your
>|psychology, according to a new study.
>|
>|People who are more conscientious and prefer
>|order, structure and closure in their lives
>|tend to be more conservative, whereas creative
>|people who are open to new experiences tend to
>|be more politically liberal, says John Jost,
>|a psychologist at New York University..."
>`------|Unquote|
>
>It took a PhD to figure that out? Geez, anyone could have told you that.
>
>Who funded this research?


It's worse than that. This is just another card dealt in the game of applying a
therapeutic model to politics. The idea being that treatment can be "made
available" for those who favor inappropriate or "out of the mainstream"
political ideas.

Assorted leftists have been working this angle for the last ten years. Well
actually they've been on it forever, but it's really only been lately that the
standards of publication in learned journals has deteriorated to the point we
hear of it.

Now it's possible that no totalitarian treatment will be forced on anyone as a
consequence of such "studies." It may only be some pack of moroons attempting to
apply a pseudo-scientific gloss to their unconsidered, cartoonish political
stereotypes.

Ron
 
On Tue, 29 May 2007 05:31:12 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 28 May 2007 23:40:27 -0700, Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Conservatives? Conscientious? On what planet?

>
>Here's a conscientious conservative. I disagree with the guy on
>almost everything. Sadly, he's losing power every day in the
>Republican party:
>http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/17734/1/RealTime-RonPaul.wmv



Ron Paul is a libertarian.

That's one of the beautiful things about America, it's probably the only place
on earth where it's possible to confuse a libertarian with a conservative.

Ron

Ron

Effect pedal demo's up at http://www.soundclick.com/ronsonicpedalry
 
RonSonic wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 05:31:12 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 28 May 2007 23:40:27 -0700, Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Conservatives? Conscientious? On what planet?

>>
>> Here's a conscientious conservative. I disagree with the guy on
>> almost everything. Sadly, he's losing power every day in the
>> Republican party:
>> http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/17734/1/RealTime-RonPaul.wmv

>
>
> Ron Paul is a libertarian.
>
> That's one of the beautiful things about America, it's probably the
> only place on earth where it's possible to confuse a libertarian with
> a conservative.


Still, Chalo has a point on his humongous bulbous melon: conservatives
SHOULD be more conscientious! I mean, it's time to indict/arrest Sandy
Berglar for stealing classified documents from the National Archives;
Valerie Plame for lying to Congress just weeks ago (memo shows she did
recommend her lying hubby for ***** after all); William Jefferson (D LA) for
taking huge bribes on tape and hiding almost $100K in his freezer; Diane
Feinstein for funneling MILLIONS to her husband's defense contracting
business while serving on the Appropriations Committee, etc etc etc etc.

But a middle-aged gay man who flirted (only, and only after being enticed)
with late-teenage pages? HIM they drum out.

Chalo's right: conservatives suck.

BS (not really)
 
On Tue, 29 May 2007 13:28:41 GMT, "T. Ling Yu"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in news:465bbc1e$0$16598
>[email protected]:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>>> Malarkey. If political preference was inherited I'd be a rabid
>>> neocon.

>>
>> What was the original content, a link or something? (The dirt rat and
>> crude-ark long ago plonked.)
>>
>> Why was this posted to cycling newsgroups, anyway?
>>

>Some individuals need to reach out to fellow travellers
>for affirmation of their religious beliefs.


Yeah, right. According to the Jesus freak neo-con conspiracy,
"secular humanism" is a religious belief.

Again proving their idiocy, ignorance, and - hope springs eternal -
their imminent irrelevance and/or demise.
 
On Tue, 29 May 2007 08:58:50 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> conservatives
>SHOULD be more conscientious! I mean, it's time to indict/arrest Sandy
>Berglar for stealing classified documents from the National Archives;
>Valerie Plame for lying to Congress just weeks ago (memo shows she did
>recommend her lying hubby for ***** after all); William Jefferson (D LA) for
>taking huge bribes on tape and hiding almost $100K in his freezer; Diane
>Feinstein for funneling MILLIONS to her husband's defense contracting
>business while serving on the Appropriations Committee, etc etc etc etc.


Do you really believe all of this?

William Jefferson is in trouble and the FBI and federal prosecutors
will probably get him, so that's good.

But the rest?

Try to think logically for a moment. Ask yourself, how is this stuff
possible? How can it be that after six years of Republican control of
Congress and the Executive Branch that there is some sort of cabal
that is keeping people who have committed these "crimes" from
prosecution. Is it Soros bribing government officials? Is it
"die-hard liberals" controlling various parts of the executive branch?
Is it hard-core left-left wing people getting on grand juries and
protecting these people from indictments? Is it that guys like the
head of the CIA are really so partisan or cowered by some vast liberal
conspiracy so as to lie about Plame? Is it the "liberal media"
exerting some sort of hypnotic control over US attorneys and district
attorneys and the public as a whole?

Where do you get this stuff?

>But a middle-aged gay man who flirted (only, and only after being enticed)
>with late-teenage pages? HIM they drum out.


This is so rude on your part. Blaming teenagers for Foley s
transgressions.


--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************