Heads up thread for Conservatives

[bigrebnc1775]

Now you can understand the liberal without asking that question
"What in the fuck is wrong with you?"
Science has shown the way

Scientists say they've found the 'liberal gene'
Is political ideology derived from a person's social environment or is it a result of genetic predisposition?

Scientists say they've found the 'liberal gene' - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com

 

[rikules]

Now you can understand the liberal without asking that question
"What in the fuck is wrong with you?"
Science has shown the way

Scientists say they've found the 'liberal gene'
Is political ideology derived from a person's social environment or is it a result of genetic predisposition?

Scientists say they've found the 'liberal gene' - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com

i've always felt that there was something fundamentally wrong with conservatives


now we know that there is!

they're gene deficient!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Now you can understand the liberal without asking that question
"What in the fuck is wrong with you?"
Science has shown the way

Scientists say they've found the 'liberal gene'
Is political ideology derived from a person's social environment or is it a result of genetic predisposition?

Scientists say they've found the 'liberal gene' - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com

i've always felt that there was something fundamentally wrong with conservatives


now we know that there is!

they're gene deficient!

I really don't think so. Things just are not connecting with liberals. I know they can't help it because it's in their genes.

 

[Tank]

Now we can find a cure.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Now we can find a cure.

They have ways of removing genes.

 

[newpolitics]

It's funny to me that republicans are now turning to science to put liberals down, when they don't even believe in science. How convenient it is that you believe in science now. Hypocrits! All of a sudden, what the scientists say is gospel.

 

[American Horse]

It's funny to me that republicans are now turning to science to put liberals down, when they don't even believe in science. How convenient it is that you believe in science now. Hypocrits! All of a sudden, what the scientists say is gospel.

It is pseudo-science that conservatives don't believe in. It's a political preference, and dysfunctional one, that liberals hold dear, that conservatives reject science.

In the realm of religion, those who are over-influenced by their religion, and call themselves conservatives reject certain scientific theories in conflict with their religious belief and fealty for; and those who call themselves liberals transfer religious fealty to unfounded pseudo scientific claims which support their religion, which happens to be liberalism in its various manifestations: for instance anthropocentric Global Warming, would by necessity be made a state religion to force compliance of the doubters, is expressed as a sacerdotal instinct by liberals.

Science-Oriented Atheism, is an atheism that attaches itself in scientific modes of understanding; and the popular discourse of science as a tool of liberalism is the atheism we have today. What about it that jumps out at and concerns me, and ought to concern anyone is how it mimics religion, particularly monotheism in its pattern of thinking -- Anybody who persists in remaining in the dark have to be marginalized and silenced.

I think the theory of the OP, which holds that the liberal mind is engendered by the number of friends they had in high-school is very pertinent. As it said here in the link: "However, social environment was critical. The more friends gene carriers have in high school, the more likely they are to be liberals as adults. The authors write, 'Ten friends can move a person with two copies of 7R allele almost halfway from being a conservative to moderate or from being moderate to liberal.' "

What this suggest to me, is how dependent the liberal is on and subject to peer pressure, and how in high-school that element of peer pressure, the need to belong, collectivizes those who are, not so much individuals, or heaven forbid "loners" or of the "lone wolf" variety, but are juvenilized into being young liberals, the easiest and most gutless decision we can make, is made right at that moment.

 

[Saikron]

It is pseudo-science that conservatives don't believe in.

Like all that evolution quackery, mirite?

And I think it's clear you didn't learn those pretty words reading sociology journals.

 

[newpolitics]

It's funny to me that republicans are now turning to science to put liberals down, when they don't even believe in science. How convenient it is that you believe in science now. Hypocrits! All of a sudden, what the scientists say is gospel.

It is pseudo-science that conservatives don't believe in. It's a political preference, and dysfunctional one, that liberals hold dear, that conservatives reject science.

In the realm of religion, those who are over-influenced by their religion, and call themselves conservatives reject certain scientific theories in conflict with their religious belief and fealty for; and those who call themselves liberals transfer religious fealty to unfounded pseudo scientific claims which support their religion, which happens to be liberalism in its various manifestations: for instance anthropocentric Global Warming, would by necessity be made a state religion to force compliance of the doubters, is expressed as a sacerdotal instinct by liberals.

Science-Oriented Atheism, is an atheism that attaches itself in scientific modes of understanding; and the popular discourse of science as a tool of liberalism is the atheism we have today. What about it that jumps out at and concerns me, and ought to concern anyone is how it mimics religion, particularly monotheism in its pattern of thinking -- Anybody who persists in remaining in the dark have to be marginalized and silenced.

I think the theory of the OP, which holds that the liberal mind is engendered by the number of friends they had in high-school is very pertinent. As it said here in the link: "However, social environment was critical. The more friends gene carriers have in high school, the more likely they are to be liberals as adults. The authors write, 'Ten friends can move a person with two copies of 7R allele almost halfway from being a conservative to moderate or from being moderate to liberal.' "

What this suggest to me, is how dependent the liberal is on and subject to peer pressure, and how in high-school that element of peer pressure, the need to belong, collectivizes those who are, not so much individuals, or heaven forbid "loners" or of the "lone wolf" variety, but are juvenilized into being young liberals, the easiest and most gutless decision we can make, is made right at that moment.

I interpreted these findings wholly differently, and I completely disagree with you on your view of athiesm, and it's similiarity to monotheism. I will explain.

In my interpretation, these findings actually prove liberals to be more free-thinkers, less dependent on the ignorance needed to sustain less worldly views, less humanistic views, and less controlled views. Are you suggesting that socializing and freedom of informational flow is bad? Your implication is that information is toxic, because it allows the formation of self-formed beliefs based on that information. You state your case as if these liberal beliefs are somehow coerced. This is false. Simply talking with more people allows more appreciable views of different perspectives, learning about others, and thus learning about oneself. Remaining isolated and only using information that is given to you by family is inherent self-sustained merely by it's lack of contact with outside of information, and thus, contained in a bubble, insulated by the family environment, where broad conclusions not based in fact are more easily formulated, unchecked by information out there, and thus more probably errant.

What this article tells me, is that people who are intellectually curious, expose themselves to more information, and therefore have a more educated opinion on things from which to form personal, political, social, and world views. You say it as if it is a bad thing, which no doubt is of interest to you in justifying your own experiences and views. What is most important, is that these people depart from that which they have been taught as a child, by family. In these early experiences, we have no say over what we believe. We believe what our family or whoever tells us. We are impressionable. In high school, we start to break away, and it is this crucial moment that decides whether you will stick with what you have been learned, unchallenged, or seek new information to see that what you have been taught is not necessarily true, and may be arbitrarily based. Not to mention the simple dynamic of not wanting to disappoint one's father or mother, or whoever is important to that person, by presenting to them political views, world, or personal views (such as those on homosexuality, racism, etc...) that contradict their own, such as presenting liberal views to a conservative father who might lose respect for his son were he to adopt such views. Such a dynamic breeds views not out of search for truth, but out of fear, which perhaps is by conservatives use fear so much- their own views are born out of fear. Fear of change, of anything different from what they know. Liberals on the other hand, are able to challenge what they have been taught, and begin anew, seeing things with a fresh perspective. This, I believe is freedom, and the latter is slavery of the mind. If they happen to form conservative views out of it, more power to them, at least they did it on their own.

This study was wildly vindicating for me, and I suspect, can be generalized to explain most conservative thinking and behavior. I already sensed and postulated what this study had said, because I see two very distinct ways in which people view the world politically, and I find it more and more curious. This study answered a lot of questions for me. Thank you for posting it.

Extending the definition of religion to liberalism, which is merely an ideology, and Atheism, which is lack of a belief in a deity, is simply an attempt at defacement and insult, a manifestation of ego, and thus, not representing of truth. Laced within your post are anger and resentment towards the 'other side,' a clear result of ego, although cleverly disguised with my big words, nice rhetoric, and smoothly crafted sentences, as undoubtedly, you are an intellectually capable person. However, I fear that you have bought into the isolationism that has allowed your viewpoints to form and solidify, to the point where they are immovable, which is sad, because of a person of your cognitive ability should be able to see past the views of conservatism, or rather, the need to be partisan at all. I am not against conservatism as it is in political theory, merely what the conservative party now stands for in America, in 2010, which are two completely different ideas.

Athiesm relies on no dogma, no readings, no congregations to muster sentiment toward some other-wordly being, and this is not a commentary on such a process, as I have believe religion can have binding effects on villages, although divise ones between and within societies.

What bothers me about what you said, is that you talk of science as if it has an agenda. There is no agenda. The scientific method doesn't allow for it. Science deals with natural laws of the universe greater than our own will to try and bend them, and as such can not be transformed to fit any agenda. Any attempt to do so will only produce misinformation, as it does in the case of creationists who posit scientific evidence for creationism. It is that simple. I'm not a philosopher, I just have sense, and this is what I have sensed, from what I see, read, and hear.

 

[skookerasbil]

It's funny to me that republicans are now turning to science to put liberals down, when they don't even believe in science. How convenient it is that you believe in science now. Hypocrits! All of a sudden, what the scientists say is gospel.

It is pseudo-science that conservatives don't believe in. It's a political preference, and dysfunctional one, that liberals hold dear, that conservatives reject science.

In the realm of religion, those who are over-influenced by their religion, and call themselves conservatives reject certain scientific theories in conflict with their religious belief and fealty for; and those who call themselves liberals transfer religious fealty to unfounded pseudo scientific claims which support their religion, which happens to be liberalism in its various manifestations: for instance anthropocentric Global Warming, would by necessity be made a state religion to force compliance of the doubters, is expressed as a sacerdotal instinct by liberals.

Science-Oriented Atheism, is an atheism that attaches itself in scientific modes of understanding; and the popular discourse of science as a tool of liberalism is the atheism we have today. What about it that jumps out at and concerns me, and ought to concern anyone is how it mimics religion, particularly monotheism in its pattern of thinking -- Anybody who persists in remaining in the dark have to be marginalized and silenced.

I think the theory of the OP, which holds that the liberal mind is engendered by the number of friends they had in high-school is very pertinent. As it said here in the link: "However, social environment was critical. The more friends gene carriers have in high school, the more likely they are to be liberals as adults. The authors write, 'Ten friends can move a person with two copies of 7R allele almost halfway from being a conservative to moderate or from being moderate to liberal.' "

What this suggest to me, is how dependent the liberal is on and subject to peer pressure, and how in high-school that element of peer pressure, the need to belong, collectivizes those who are, not so much individuals, or heaven forbid "loners" or of the "lone wolf" variety, but are juvenilized into being young liberals, the easiest and most gutless decision we can make, is made right at that moment.

Very interesting post bro.........especially the last paragraph, thus, the limpwrister explanation and the long held social dogma related to not caring about "results" but only "good intentions". Ive always held that being a liberal takes no balls.....indeed, their positions on matters of public policy are invariably grounded in this phoney moralistic view which conveniently ignores uninteneded consequences but gains almost universal acceptance amongt peers. That there is no recognition of that during the course of their lives is fascinating to me and it makes alot of sense that there is some kind of neurological fcukk up that facilitates it.........this romance with the concept of "free thinking" as an ultimate virtue, the results be damned!!!


fcukking fascinating.........

 

[The T]

It's funny to me that republicans are now turning to science to put liberals down, when they don't even believe in science. How convenient it is that you believe in science now. Hypocrits! All of a sudden, what the scientists say is gospel.

It is pseudo-science that conservatives don't believe in. It's a political preference, and dysfunctional one, that liberals hold dear, that conservatives reject science.

In the realm of religion, those who are over-influenced by their religion, and call themselves conservatives reject certain scientific theories in conflict with their religious belief and fealty for; and those who call themselves liberals transfer religious fealty to unfounded pseudo scientific claims which support their religion, which happens to be liberalism in its various manifestations: for instance anthropocentric Global Warming, would by necessity be made a state religion to force compliance of the doubters, is expressed as a sacerdotal instinct by liberals.

Science-Oriented Atheism, is an atheism that attaches itself in scientific modes of understanding; and the popular discourse of science as a tool of liberalism is the atheism we have today. What about it that jumps out at and concerns me, and ought to concern anyone is how it mimics religion, particularly monotheism in its pattern of thinking -- Anybody who persists in remaining in the dark have to be marginalized and silenced.

I think the theory of the OP, which holds that the liberal mind is engendered by the number of friends they had in high-school is very pertinent. As it said here in the link: "However, social environment was critical. The more friends gene carriers have in high school, the more likely they are to be liberals as adults. The authors write, 'Ten friends can move a person with two copies of 7R allele almost halfway from being a conservative to moderate or from being moderate to liberal.' "

What this suggest to me, is how dependent the liberal is on and subject to peer pressure, and how in high-school that element of peer pressure, the need to belong, collectivizes those who are, not so much individuals, or heaven forbid "loners" or of the "lone wolf" variety, but are juvenilized into being young liberals, the easiest and most gutless decision we can make, is made right at that moment.

And what is Science but to get to the truth? Conservatives (ism) is all about getting to the truth and shining the light on it regardless of their particuliar feelings on the outcome and the ability to make proper choices based upon the truth no matter what it is.

As to Religion? I think that Science and Religion go hand-in-hand. Both to me are the realization that there are larger things out there than ourselves. And the dicussions of both should always be rooted in truth again no matter the finding on what that truth is, and the ability to face it head on.

Hope this makes sense?

 

[skookerasbil]

It's funny to me that republicans are now turning to science to put liberals down, when they don't even believe in science. How convenient it is that you believe in science now. Hypocrits! All of a sudden, what the scientists say is gospel.

It is pseudo-science that conservatives don't believe in. It's a political preference, and dysfunctional one, that liberals hold dear, that conservatives reject science.

In the realm of religion, those who are over-influenced by their religion, and call themselves conservatives reject certain scientific theories in conflict with their religious belief and fealty for; and those who call themselves liberals transfer religious fealty to unfounded pseudo scientific claims which support their religion, which happens to be liberalism in its various manifestations: for instance anthropocentric Global Warming, would by necessity be made a state religion to force compliance of the doubters, is expressed as a sacerdotal instinct by liberals.

Science-Oriented Atheism, is an atheism that attaches itself in scientific modes of understanding; and the popular discourse of science as a tool of liberalism is the atheism we have today. What about it that jumps out at and concerns me, and ought to concern anyone is how it mimics religion, particularly monotheism in its pattern of thinking -- Anybody who persists in remaining in the dark have to be marginalized and silenced.

I think the theory of the OP, which holds that the liberal mind is engendered by the number of friends they had in high-school is very pertinent. As it said here in the link: "However, social environment was critical. The more friends gene carriers have in high school, the more likely they are to be liberals as adults. The authors write, 'Ten friends can move a person with two copies of 7R allele almost halfway from being a conservative to moderate or from being moderate to liberal.' "

What this suggest to me, is how dependent the liberal is on and subject to peer pressure, and how in high-school that element of peer pressure, the need to belong, collectivizes those who are, not so much individuals, or heaven forbid "loners" or of the "lone wolf" variety, but are juvenilized into being young liberals, the easiest and most gutless decision we can make, is made right at that moment.

And what is Science but to get to the truth? Conservatives (ism) is all about getting to the truth and shining the light on it regardless of their particuliar feelings on the outcome and the ability to make proper choices based upon the truth no matter what it is.

As to Religion? I think that Science and Religion go hand-in-hand. Both to me are the realization that there are larger things out there than ourselves. And the dicussions of both should always be rooted in truth again no matter the finding on what that truth is, and the ability to face it head on.

Hope this makes sense?

indeed T........in other words, there is no objective truth for the liberal mind. No wonder these people are perpetually miserable. Who wouldnt be with all the rumination of thoughts every moment of your life.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's funny to me that republicans are now turning to science to put liberals down, when they don't even believe in science. How convenient it is that you believe in science now. Hypocrits! All of a sudden, what the scientists say is gospel.

And only 6% of scientists are Republicans!
Are you channeling RDean?

 

[The T]

It is pseudo-science that conservatives don't believe in. It's a political preference, and dysfunctional one, that liberals hold dear, that conservatives reject science.

In the realm of religion, those who are over-influenced by their religion, and call themselves conservatives reject certain scientific theories in conflict with their religious belief and fealty for; and those who call themselves liberals transfer religious fealty to unfounded pseudo scientific claims which support their religion, which happens to be liberalism in its various manifestations: for instance anthropocentric Global Warming, would by necessity be made a state religion to force compliance of the doubters, is expressed as a sacerdotal instinct by liberals.

Science-Oriented Atheism, is an atheism that attaches itself in scientific modes of understanding; and the popular discourse of science as a tool of liberalism is the atheism we have today. What about it that jumps out at and concerns me, and ought to concern anyone is how it mimics religion, particularly monotheism in its pattern of thinking -- Anybody who persists in remaining in the dark have to be marginalized and silenced.

I think the theory of the OP, which holds that the liberal mind is engendered by the number of friends they had in high-school is very pertinent. As it said here in the link: "However, social environment was critical. The more friends gene carriers have in high school, the more likely they are to be liberals as adults. The authors write, 'Ten friends can move a person with two copies of 7R allele almost halfway from being a conservative to moderate or from being moderate to liberal.' "

What this suggest to me, is how dependent the liberal is on and subject to peer pressure, and how in high-school that element of peer pressure, the need to belong, collectivizes those who are, not so much individuals, or heaven forbid "loners" or of the "lone wolf" variety, but are juvenilized into being young liberals, the easiest and most gutless decision we can make, is made right at that moment.

And what is Science but to get to the truth? Conservatives (ism) is all about getting to the truth and shining the light on it regardless of their particuliar feelings on the outcome and the ability to make proper choices based upon the truth no matter what it is.

As to Religion? I think that Science and Religion go hand-in-hand. Both to me are the realization that there are larger things out there than ourselves. And the dicussions of both should always be rooted in truth again no matter the finding on what that truth is, and the ability to face it head on.

Hope this makes sense?

indeed T........in other words, there is no objective truth for the liberal mind. No wonder these people are perpetually miserable. Who wouldnt be with all the rumination of thoughts every moment of your life.

As the article in the OP seems to suggest? It's about acceptence, being accepted no matter what the truth really is. And Liberalism as practiced today is a truly gutless choice. It is a place to run and hide...a temporary 'safehouse'.

As history has shown? Truth eventually wins out. You I am sure have seen me in many posts use the term 'Cult Of Personality'? This in effect is what I am speaking of when I view Modern Day Liberalism (Which is nothing more than Progressivism...which is in of itself destructive to one's self, and others caught in it's vortex), and as others like you have suggested is way too easy to get caught up in.

Thanks 'Bro.

~T

 

[Old Rocks]

It's funny to me that republicans are now turning to science to put liberals down, when they don't even believe in science. How convenient it is that you believe in science now. Hypocrits! All of a sudden, what the scientists say is gospel.

It is pseudo-science that conservatives don't believe in. It's a political preference, and dysfunctional one, that liberals hold dear, that conservatives reject science.

In the realm of religion, those who are over-influenced by their religion, and call themselves conservatives reject certain scientific theories in conflict with their religious belief and fealty for; and those who call themselves liberals transfer religious fealty to unfounded pseudo scientific claims which support their religion, which happens to be liberalism in its various manifestations: for instance anthropocentric Global Warming, would by necessity be made a state religion to force compliance of the doubters, is expressed as a sacerdotal instinct by liberals.

Science-Oriented Atheism, is an atheism that attaches itself in scientific modes of understanding; and the popular discourse of science as a tool of liberalism is the atheism we have today. What about it that jumps out at and concerns me, and ought to concern anyone is how it mimics religion, particularly monotheism in its pattern of thinking -- Anybody who persists in remaining in the dark have to be marginalized and silenced.

I think the theory of the OP, which holds that the liberal mind is engendered by the number of friends they had in high-school is very pertinent. As it said here in the link: "However, social environment was critical. The more friends gene carriers have in high school, the more likely they are to be liberals as adults. The authors write, 'Ten friends can move a person with two copies of 7R allele almost halfway from being a conservative to moderate or from being moderate to liberal.' "

What this suggest to me, is how dependent the liberal is on and subject to peer pressure, and how in high-school that element of peer pressure, the need to belong, collectivizes those who are, not so much individuals, or heaven forbid "loners" or of the "lone wolf" variety, but are juvenilized into being young liberals, the easiest and most gutless decision we can make, is made right at that moment.

And what is Science but to get to the truth? Conservatives (ism) is all about getting to the truth and shining the light on it regardless of their particuliar feelings on the outcome and the ability to make proper choices based upon the truth no matter what it is.

As to Religion? I think that Science and Religion go hand-in-hand. Both to me are the realization that there are larger things out there than ourselves. And the dicussions of both should always be rooted in truth again no matter the finding on what that truth is, and the ability to face it head on.

Hope this makes sense?

Just as much sense as the WMD in Iraq. Real Conservative truth.

 

[American Horse]

It is pseudo-science that conservatives don't believe in.

Like all that evolution quackery, mirite?

And I think it's clear you didn't learn those pretty words reading sociology journals.

Would it shock you to learn, that I as a conservative, when discussing favorite subjects with fellow conservatives, talk about politics and human nature second only to science as subjects of our common everyday interest?

And that my command of "pretty words" comes from a 1950's high school education?

And that I find my liberal friends (I live in the second most liberal community in the US east of San Francisco, and only anecdotal) are more doctrinaire, and less open-minded about science than my conservative friends?

 

[The T]

It is pseudo-science that conservatives don't believe in. It's a political preference, and dysfunctional one, that liberals hold dear, that conservatives reject science.

In the realm of religion, those who are over-influenced by their religion, and call themselves conservatives reject certain scientific theories in conflict with their religious belief and fealty for; and those who call themselves liberals transfer religious fealty to unfounded pseudo scientific claims which support their religion, which happens to be liberalism in its various manifestations: for instance anthropocentric Global Warming, would by necessity be made a state religion to force compliance of the doubters, is expressed as a sacerdotal instinct by liberals.

Science-Oriented Atheism, is an atheism that attaches itself in scientific modes of understanding; and the popular discourse of science as a tool of liberalism is the atheism we have today. What about it that jumps out at and concerns me, and ought to concern anyone is how it mimics religion, particularly monotheism in its pattern of thinking -- Anybody who persists in remaining in the dark have to be marginalized and silenced.

I think the theory of the OP, which holds that the liberal mind is engendered by the number of friends they had in high-school is very pertinent. As it said here in the link: "However, social environment was critical. The more friends gene carriers have in high school, the more likely they are to be liberals as adults. The authors write, 'Ten friends can move a person with two copies of 7R allele almost halfway from being a conservative to moderate or from being moderate to liberal.' "

What this suggest to me, is how dependent the liberal is on and subject to peer pressure, and how in high-school that element of peer pressure, the need to belong, collectivizes those who are, not so much individuals, or heaven forbid "loners" or of the "lone wolf" variety, but are juvenilized into being young liberals, the easiest and most gutless decision we can make, is made right at that moment.

And what is Science but to get to the truth? Conservatives (ism) is all about getting to the truth and shining the light on it regardless of their particuliar feelings on the outcome and the ability to make proper choices based upon the truth no matter what it is.

As to Religion? I think that Science and Religion go hand-in-hand. Both to me are the realization that there are larger things out there than ourselves. And the dicussions of both should always be rooted in truth again no matter the finding on what that truth is, and the ability to face it head on.

Hope this makes sense?

Just as much sense as the WMD in Iraq. Real Conservative truth.

Off Topic as usual...and a good example of the OP's point. Thank you for playing.

 

[glew]

Just as much sense as the WMD in Iraq. Real Conservative truth.

Seems to me that the number of liberal/progressive politicians that also believed Saddam had WMD, was legion. So you just lost your point about conservative truth. In fact you just made your point that liberals have no truth, and base their ideology on current "group think" as opposed to historical truth.

 

[American Horse]

Just as much sense as the WMD in Iraq. Real Conservative truth.

Seems to me that the number of liberal/progressive politicians that also believed Saddam had WMD, was legion. So you just lost your point about conservative truth. In fact you just made your point that liberals have no truth, and base their ideology on current "group think" as opposed to historical truth.

Agreed, and what the post exposes is a leaning towards doctrinaire inculcated "TRUTH" as opposed to scientific truth. Indoctrinated truth in this case flew in the face of the truth on the ground:

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And what is Science but to get to the truth? Conservatives (ism) is all about getting to the truth and shining the light on it regardless of their particuliar feelings on the outcome and the ability to make proper choices based upon the truth no matter what it is.

As to Religion? I think that Science and Religion go hand-in-hand. Both to me are the realization that there are larger things out there than ourselves. And the dicussions of both should always be rooted in truth again no matter the finding on what that truth is, and the ability to face it head on.

Hope this makes sense?

Just as much sense as the WMD in Iraq. Real Conservative truth.

Off Topic as usual...and a good example of the OP's point. Thank you for playing.

Thats the only way they can by-pass the truth change the subject.