Scientists Find 'Liberal Gene'

TurtleDude said:

now this demonstrates the stupidity of using terms outside a given era of history and trying to apply them to different eras

conservative is irrelevant as a term unless you define the context. IN a socialist society, someone who pushes more socialism would be conservative. IN a monarchy, defenders of the crown are conservatives. In a society founded on freedom and liberty, the conservatives would be defending freedom and liberty from the creepy crud of collectivism.

the people who rebeled against the Monarchy have far more in common with american conservatives than our current crop of liberals who are statist reactionary parasites.

Click to expand...

Your argument is terrible weak and flawed. Are you telling me that the Southern Democrats who opposed abolition and the civil rights movement weren't considered conservative in their time? Because if you are, I have some American history 101 books you should read.

Instead of these moronic talking points about people who think differently than you having a "mental disorder" or "genetic disorder," maybe you should just accept the fact that maybe your views aren't so obvious to everyone else. If they were, then surely your candidates would win in landslides every election. :roll:

Here is what I think is a pretty fair analysis of the innate differences between liberals and conservatives. Makes a lot of sense.

TurtleDude said:

such high sounding nonsense serving as a facade to justify a far left bias.

Click to expand...

A position is not a "bias," I'm not "far left" by any stretch of the imagination, and you're proving my point with every word.

TurtleDude said:

we get the fact that those who believe in suckling on the public teat hate conservatives.

Click to expand...

:lol: Another characteristic of conservative thinking is projection. They spend more time and money demonizing "welfare" than they pay in taxes to fund welfare - and they really seem to enjoy going after defenseless people. I wonder if it makes them feel big.

Johnny DooWop said:

Conservatives were the ones opposing breaking away from Britain and starting our own country. Conservatives were the ones opposing the abolition of slavery. Conservatives were the ones opposing women's rights to vote. Conservatives were the ones opposing the civil rights movement. They haven't done anything significant to progress this country forward in a good way. Thank goodness they left the Democratic party and switched over to the Republicans in recent years.

Click to expand...

FDR would not support an anti-lynching law during his administration, and JFK was not quite the dynamo when it came to pushing for the Civil Rights Act out of his own fear of alienating his Southern supporters. In fact, he pretty much kept the issue on the back burner and although we will never know if the Civil Rights Act would have passed during his administration, anti-civil rights ideology was used at times to keep the Democratic Southern voters happy. Which means - Southern Democrats weren't "all that" when it came to civil rights, either.

TurtleDude said:

In a society founded on freedom and liberty, the conservatives would be defending freedom and liberty from the creepy crud of collectivism.

Click to expand...

Preventing gays from marrying the person of their choice, preventing law abiding tax paying citizens from smoking marijuana in the privacy of their own homes, preventing gays from "openly" enlisting in the military, preventing Muslims-American citizens from practicing their religion the way they like and wearing the garb they like...Would this be the "freedom" and "liberty" that you are trying to preserve?

Johnny DooWop said:

Your argument is terrible weak and flawed. Are you telling me that the Southern Democrats who opposed abolition and the civil rights movement weren't considered conservative in their time? Because if you are, I have some American history 101 books you should read.

Click to expand...

yawn-you really are uneducated about the terms

you pretend that modern liberals have the same mindset as the founders? Sure southern democrats wanted to preserve the status quo in their environment. Current liberals want to maintain welfare socialism

current liberals are anti freedom

Johnny DooWop said:

Preventing gays from marrying the person of their choice, preventing law abiding tax paying citizens from smoking marijuana in the privacy of their own homes, preventing gays from "openly" enlisting in the military, preventing Muslims-American citizens from practicing their religion the way they like and wearing the garb they like...Would this be the "freedom" and "liberty" that you are trying to preserve?

Click to expand...

Wow-we have had two years of complete dem control-how come dope is still illegal? what part of the constitution allows the idiotic war on drugs

ANSWER-THE FDR EXPANSION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE

(oops)

Dulcinea said:

Which means - Southern Democrats weren't "all that" when it came to civil rights, either.

Click to expand...

Ummm...that's exactly what I said. The Southern Democrats were referred to as conservative Democrats. That's why I said good thing they (the conservatives) left the Democratic party and infiltrated the Republican party after the Civil Rights movement. They did this specifically because politicians like JFK and other Democrats who were turning more liberal were supporting the Civil Rights movement (although you are right, JFK could have done a lot more, he was too concerned with pleasing the southern good ol' boys at times).

TurtleDude said:

yawn-you really are uneducated about the terms

you pretend that modern liberals have the same mindset as the founders? Sure southern democrats wanted to preserve the status quo in their environment. Current liberals want to maintain welfare socialism

current liberals are anti freedom

Click to expand...

Founders? When did I mention founders in that sentence?

Troubadour said:

A position is not a "bias," I'm not "far left" by any stretch of the imagination, and you're proving my point with every word.



:lol: Another characteristic of conservative thinking is projection. They spend more time and money demonizing "welfare" than they pay in taxes to fund welfare - and they really seem to enjoy going after defenseless people. I wonder if it makes them feel big.

Click to expand...

so you are claiming to be helpless? what part of your existence creates a just claim on other peoples' wealth

Here ya go.

What are you going to tell me next TurtleDude, the southern states seceded because of "states rights" and the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery? If you quote that godforsaken book "The South was Right", I quit.

Johnny DooWop said:

What are you going to tell me next TurtleDude, the southern states seceded because of "states rights" and the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery? If you quote that godforsaken book "The South was Right", I quit.

Click to expand...

I better buy a copy of the book and hope you are a Man/woman of your word

states rights had as much to do with it as slavery and I bet money that most of the people who took up arms did so for their state rather than for slave owners (who weren't nearly enough to create a few dozen regiments)

You might read some of the works of one of my old professors Michael F. Holt (currently U of Va)

Johnny DooWop said:

Ummm...that's exactly what I said. The Southern Democrats were referred to as conservative Democrats. That's why I said good thing they (the conservatives) left the Democratic party and infiltrated the Republican party after the Civil Rights movement. They did this specifically because politicians like JFK and other Democrats who were turning more liberal were supporting the Civil Rights movement (although you are right, JFK could have done a lot more, he was too concerned with pleasing the southern good ol' boys at times).

Click to expand...

I was reading your post to mean that the Southern Democrats were not Democrats at all. There are still conservative Democrats - they didn't all just magically disappear into the nether world of conservatism during the time of the civil rights.

I believe that generalizing any group is one of the major obstacles we face today, more so than ever before. From far left to far right - I still believe that there is still that middle ground where most of us humans with all our preconceived notions and biases (we ALL have them) try to muddle through and do the best we can. I believe that most of us fall somewhere in between; perhaps leaning more to the left, or more to the right on some issues; but I don't believe that any one group is the cause nor the cure for every issue we face today.

YMMV

TurtleDude said:

I better buy a copy of the book and hope you are a Man/woman of your word

states rights had as much to do with it as slavery and I bet money that most of the people who took up arms did so for their state rather than for slave owners (who weren't nearly enough to create a few dozen regiments)

You might read some of the works of one of my old professors Michael F. Holt (currently U of Va)

Click to expand...

Haha! I knew I had you pegged! Good ol' Boy much? Tell your dumb a** professor to read the "Corner-stone speech", by the Vice President of the Confederate States of AMerica on March 21, 1861 in which he lays out the Confederate cause for secession. He starts out by talking about terrifs and the senate and stuff. The he gets to the nitty gritty.

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea (he was referring to the Northern idea that slavery is morally wrong); its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Johnny DooWop said:

Haha! I knew I had you pegged! Good ol' Boy much? Tell your dumb a** professor to read the "Corner-stone speech", by the Vice President of the Confederate States of AMerica on March 21, 1861 in which he lays out the Confederate cause for secession. He starts out by talking about terrifs and the senate and stuff. The he gets to the nitty gritty.

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea (he was referring to the Northern idea that slavery is morally wrong); its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Click to expand...

you are starting to get silly. Good ol boy? hardly, my family included the first Union officer fired upon by the confederacy (have someone tell you who that was)

and I am sure you have the academic credentials of Professor Holt.

so tell me, why did all those poor whites suffer hardships fighting a far better armed and bigger Union army

so some rich guy could own slaves?

did Lee fight for the confederacy because he wanted to keep blacks enslaved or because he supported his state

oh do tell since you apparently have more education on the subject than one of the leading ante-bellum historians in the entire United States

while our newbie is googling Professor HOlt, I have to call it a night

Maybe he can explain why so many southerners took up arms for rich slave owners

TurtleDude said:

you are starting to get silly. Good ol boy? hardly, my family included the first Union officer fired upon by the confederacy (have someone tell you who that was)

and I am sure you have the academic credentials of Professor Holt.

so tell me, why did all those poor whites suffer hardships fighting a far better armed and bigger Union army

so some rich guy could own slaves?

did Lee fight for the confederacy because he wanted to keep blacks enslaved or because he supported his state

oh do tell since you apparently have more education on the subject than one of the leading ante-bellum historians in the entire United States

Click to expand...

Well I do have my BA in American History and I'm working on a Masters Degree in a related subject right now so don't doubt my knowledge. As for your question, I'll answer it with a question of my own, why do almost all poor whites in rural areas in the south vote for the Republican party, when Democratic financial policies and tax breaks clearly favor people who make under $65k a year, and Republican tax breaks and policies mostly favor people who make over $160k a year? You are right, the Civil War was a rich man's war. The rich land owners had all the poor whites fight for them by using the same fear mongering talking points that were used to get all of the conservatives hyped up about the Iraq War. Tell an uneducated southern boy that the North is trying to take over and change his way of life, he'll believe it, even if it is highly exaggerated. In actuality, the wealthy land owners didn't want their "peculiar institution" taken away by Northern Liberals.

TurtleDude said:

so you are claiming to be helpless?

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that many of the people demonized by conservatives are helpless. It makes me angry because I have a sense of right and wrong, not because I'm one of their victims.

TurtleDude said:

what part of your existence creates a just claim on other peoples' wealth

Click to expand...

You have wealth because you live in a society that makes it possible, protects your rights, and provides you with an environment conducive to opportunity. That costs, and some of that cost involves protecting other people. But if you don't believe you need this country, and don't want to pay in return what it asks of you, you are always welcome to go try your luck in a country that asks nothing and provides nothing - but I wouldn't recommend it. There tend to be a lot of truck-mounted machine guns and child-soldiers in countries like that.

TurtleDude said:

while our newbie is googling Professor HOlt, I have to call it a night

Maybe he can explain why so many southerners took up arms for rich slave owners

Click to expand...

So wait, you practically take up arms to defend the rich from tax cuts, your political culture has been shaped by the public campaigns of special interest groups manipulating you for profit...

and this seems like a stretch. And I'm sorry, you don't carry yourself like much of an intellectual pro. :shrug:

Troubadour said:

You have wealth because you live in a society that makes it possible, protects your rights, and provides you with an environment conducive to opportunity. That costs, and some of that cost involves protecting other people. But if you don't believe you need this country, and don't want to pay in return what it asks of you, you are always welcome to go try your luck in a country that asks nothing and provides nothing - but I wouldn't recommend it. There tend to be a lot of truck-mounted machine guns and child-soldiers in countries like that.

Click to expand...

You don't even have to get moralistic or ideological... the costs to society are mitigated and everyone comes to greater returns and fewer losses thanks to the demon of socialism.

Troubadour said:

No, I'm saying that many of the people demonized by conservatives are helpless. It makes me angry because I have a sense of right and wrong, not because I'm one of their victims.



You have wealth because you live in a society that makes it possible, protects your rights, and provides you with an environment conducive to opportunity. That costs, and some of that cost involves protecting other people. But if you don't believe you need this country, and don't want to pay in return what it asks of you, you are always welcome to go try your luck in a country that asks nothing and provides nothing - but I wouldn't recommend it. There tend to be a lot of truck-mounted machine guns and child-soldiers in countries like that.

Click to expand...

It is an ungrateful person who bites the hand that feed him....

I hear that we're also on the verge of a breakthrough regarding political moderates and "independents". It's long been assumed that moderate views are varied and thus difficult to characterize, but this has gone largely untested - seems no one really gives a damn about the moderate/independent worldview. Drab and uninteresting, the topic was quickly given priority status for stimulus dollars. A research team was identified one pull of the "short straw" later.

Initial findings suggest that the enormous range of moderate/independent beliefs result from a single factor - low iq. Unable to grasp simple concepts, most moderates forego politics altogether. The smarter ones (a very small subset) may form a rudimentary understanding of a topic and thus become single issue voters. The awe that stems from understanding a simple concept compels some to expand that concept into a rudimentary, naive worldview. Unable to grasp the inherent complexities of the world, these people become libertarians, or join political parties named after their favorite color.

Although stupid and unable to debate the important topics of the day, the moderate/independent nonetheless enjoys participating in online discussions where they bounce from thread to thread "enlightening" the masses with the same, droll observation that yes, "BOTH parties do it." While those on the other side of the bell curve roll their eyes, the moderate/independent relishes in having made the exact same point for the 1000th time. Never quite convinced that the others are as impressed as he by the fiercely independent caracature invented to hide his flaws, he smiles to himself thinking, "if only they could see my tattoos!"

Its nice to see someone trolling the independents for a change. We were beginning to feel left out.

Actually we DO know something about liberals and conservatives. Hacks from both sides are unable to reason when confronted with facts that oppose their position. Literally, the part of the brain that is most associated with reasoning, turns "off", and their decision-making and conflict resolution ceases to be objective.

Here is the study: Democrats and Republicans Both Adept at Ignoring Facts, Study Finds | LiveScience

I'm sure you can identify folks from both sides of the aisle who might suffer from this affliction.