Conservatives

You have it ass backwards... ALL the studies done on authoritarian personalities reveal a very small percentage come from the left...about 1%...they are called revolutionaries
HA HA HA HA

You really are a massive douche.

Lenin
Stalin
Malenkov
Khrushchev
Brezhnev
Kosygin
Mikoyan
Andropov
Chernenko
Mao
Hua Guofeng
Hu Yaobang
Zhao Ziyang
Jiang Zemin
Hu Jintao
Ho che Minn
Pol Pot
Kim el Sung
Robert Mugabe

The list is endless. :lol:
 
The Moral Majority is nothing NEW…

jerry_falwell0515.jpg

“If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth ...
We need to pull out all the stops to recruit and train 25 million Americans to become informed pro-moral activists whose voices can be heard in the halls of Congress.”

“I am convinced that America can be turned around if we will all get serious about the Master's business. It may be late, but it is never too late to do what is right.
We need an old-fashioned, God-honoring, Christ-exalting revival to turn American back to God. America can be saved!”

Jerry Falwell
"Moral Majority Report" for September, 1984




adolf_hitler_biography_4.jpg

"The national government... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."

"Today Christians... stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past... few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.
 
I just waded through all this andm to be honest, I can't figure out what the topic is.
 
You have it ass backwards... ALL the studies done on authoritarian personalities reveal a very small percentage come from the left...about 1%...they are called revolutionaries
HA HA HA HA

You really are a massive douche.

Lenin
Stalin
Malenkov
Khrushchev
Brezhnev
Kosygin
Mikoyan
Andropov
Chernenko
Mao
Hua Guofeng
Hu Yaobang
Zhao Ziyang
Jiang Zemin
Hu Jintao
Ho che Minn
Pol Pot
Kim el Sung
Robert Mugabe

The list is endless. :lol:

Your parochial indoctrination has clouded your mind...

What part of "While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives" don't you understand?
John W. Dean

DEAN: I ran into a massive study that has really been going on 50 years now by academics. They've never really shared this with the general public. It's a remarkable analysis of the authoritarian personality. Both those who are inclined to follow leaders and those who jump in front and want to be the leaders. It was not the opinion of social scientists. It was information they drew by questioning large numbers of people -- hundreds of thousands of people -- in anonymous testing where [the subjects] conceded their innermost feelings and reactions to things. And it came out that most of these people were pre-qualified to be conservatives and this, did indeed, fit with the authoritarian personality.

OLBERMANN: Did the studies indicate that this really has anything to do with the political point of view? Would it be easier to impose authoritarianism over the right than it would the left? Is it theoretically possible that it could have gone in either direction and it's just a question of people who like to follow other people?

DEAN: They have found, really, maybe a small, 1%, of the left who will follow authoritarianism. Probably the far left. As far as widespread testing, it's just overwhelmingly conservative orientation.

Here's some MORE enlightenment...

February 27, 1989
Soviet Conservatives Try to Turn Back the Clock on Gorbachev's Policies
By ESTHER B. FEIN, Special to the New York Times

Russian conservatives, uneasy with the liberalization of Soviet society under Mikhail S. Gorbachev, have seized on the country's experiment in more democratic elections as a chance to fight for a return to more authoritarian ways.

While many candidates and voters say they view the elections to the new Congress of Deputies as a way to further the candor and freedoms allowed by the Soviet leader, conservatives in this city and around the country were boasting last week that they had already succeeded in blocking the nomination of several prominent people regarded as liberals.

''You see the work of our hand,'' said Pavel G. Ivanov, a retired truck driver, gloating at the defeat of Vitaly A. Korotich, a magazine editor despised by conservatives as the exemplar of the new permissiveness. ''And you will see it more.'' A Disparate Alliance

The conservatives are a disparate alliance, including xenophobic fringe groups, like Pamyat, as well as large numbers of less extreme nationalists who yearn for what they see as the simple values of Old Russia and the Orthodox church.

It is impossible to accurately gauge the extent of their influence or their support among nominees, but it is clear that conservatives are seizing upon the March 26 election, which Mr. Gorbachev has described as the key step toward greater democracy, to promote their political platform.

At election rallies where speakers call out against the influence of ''Zionist forces,'' and in campaign leaflets decrying ''liberal yellow journalists,'' representatives of politically conservative organizations are trying to draft voters and candidates to establish a foothold within the Government. New Congress of 2,250 Deputies

''We need deputies who will protect us against destructive, Zionistic forces,'' said Vladimir Ozhigonov, a factory worker, who was at a rally last Sunday, holding a sign that read: ''The movement of Pamyat will win.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/27/world/soviet-conservatives-try-to-turn-back-the-clock-on-gorbachev-s-policies.html
 
infantile nonsense removed to save space.

You are a classic example of the blind partisan, the type I love to mock as you think you are somehow 'superior' to your opponents.

Guess again, you and them are the same, you use the same tactics and hope for the same thing, to impose your view of things on people whether they like it or not.

In short, you are just as comfortable with a Mao as you would be with a Hitler, as long as he was in your corner.
 
infantile nonsense removed to save space.

You are a classic example of the blind partisan, the type I love to mock as you think you are somehow 'superior' to your opponents.

Guess again, you and them are the same, you use the same tactics and hope for the same thing, to impose your view of things on people whether they like it or not.

In short, you are just as comfortable with a Mao as you would be with a Hitler, as long as he was in your corner.

Can't reply to the truth eh?

Superior...no, but more informed, yes...

There's ONE constant throughout history...human nature... it NEVER changes...

IF you study the history totalitarianism in Europe in the 1920's leading up to fascism, it was preceded by liberal bashing...
The Hard Road to Fascism
 
infantile nonsense removed to save space.

You are a classic example of the blind partisan, the type I love to mock as you think you are somehow 'superior' to your opponents.

Guess again, you and them are the same, you use the same tactics and hope for the same thing, to impose your view of things on people whether they like it or not.

In short, you are just as comfortable with a Mao as you would be with a Hitler, as long as he was in your corner.

This poor sick person with whom you are conversing will never accept a response.

Check the thread, and you will see a pathetic attempt to continue the banter, no matter what is posted.

The loneliness is palpable.

I'm guessing that the list of BFGN's friends looks like the Unibombers Flow Chart.
 
The circumstances into which people are born isn't limited to how much money their parents have, although money certainly buys a lot of advantages poor people can't afford.


The circumstances into which people are born also includes the advantage or disadvantage of having or not having a relatively high IQ. Jobs' biological parents, for example, were at least intelligent enough to achieve academic success -- graduate school, a professorship.

[Jobs' adoptive parents also supported academic ambition.

Those are advantages that some others don't have, and they are advantages that helped endow Jobs with, for example, the intuition and curiosity to which he referred.

And why are we using Jobs and Gates as examples, anyway? Clearly, people with high IQs have greater opportunity than people who are less well endowed mentally.


As I've said, IQ itself is not inherited. That is a rather outdated, reductive approach.

I brought up Jobs to illustrate how people from modest backgrounds can do quite well, despite financial setbacks. This fact is not limited to Jobs, who admittedly, is an extreme example, but is the first one that popped into my head.

We can agree that there are a number of variables that influence individual success: IQ, determination, finances, encouragement and connections, right? And just for the hell of it, I would throw in place identity.Having money just makes life a hell of a lot easier.

Anyway, have yourself a nice day. :)
 
Last edited:
:clap2::clap2::clap2:
Hitler was a socialist. He said so. the positional differences Between Mein Kampf and Das Capital are extremely limited. The Only difference between Moussolini's fascism and Stalins socialism can be found in the simple statement that Moussolini thought it quite possible to simultaneously be a good italian and a good Socialist. Mousolini claimed to be a socialist til his dying day.

You define conservatism as does every other illiterati on the left according to what your idiot leaders want not according to what is reality.

anarchy is on the extreme right of the political line Totalitarianism on the extreme left. The theft of individual liberty always happens as we move more toward the collective and further away from the individual rights that those of us on the right cherish and those on the left see as hindrance to their utopian ideal.
:clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:

Well said... But ideology is a line which returns to itself... where totalitarianism and anarchy begin and end and the same point. As they one leads directly to the other.

US Conservatives recognize that an anarchists is pretty much the same thing as a Communist, where the communist and the anarchist both disregard the rights of others and limit their conern of them to the responsibilities of which others have to provide for their needs; believing that THEY possess all the rights and it is up to the others to provide for them.

Of course BOTH the self declared anarchist AND the Communist will vehemently disagree... but neither possess the intellecual means to tell us WHY...
 
The circumstances into which people are born isn't limited to how much money their parents have, although money certainly buys a lot of advantages poor people can't afford.


The circumstances into which people are born also includes the advantage or disadvantage of having or not having a relatively high IQ. Jobs' biological parents, for example, were at least intelligent enough to achieve academic success -- graduate school, a professorship.

[Jobs' adoptive parents also supported academic ambition.

Those are advantages that some others don't have, and they are advantages that helped endow Jobs with, for example, the intuition and curiosity to which he referred.

And why are we using Jobs and Gates as examples, anyway? Clearly, people with high IQs have greater opportunity than people who are less well endowed mentally.


As I've said, IQ itself is not inherited. That is a rather outdated, reductive approach.

I brought up Jobs to illustrate how people from modest backgrounds can do quite well, despite financial setbacks. This fact is not limited to Jobs, who admittedly, is an extreme example, but is the first one that popped into my head.

We can agree that there are a number of variables that influence individual success: IQ, determination, finances, encouragement and connections, right? And just for the hell of it, I would throw in place identity.Having money just makes life a hell of a lot easier.

Anyway, have yourself a nice day. :)

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Brain Images Reveal the Secret to Higher IQ
The integrity of neural wiring is a big factor in determining intelligence. It's also inheritable.

By Emily Singer

New research suggests that the layer of insulation coating neural wiring in the brain plays a critical role in determining intelligence. In addition, the quality of this insulation appears to be largely genetically determined, providing further support for the idea that IQ is partly inherited....

Technology Review: Brain Images Reveal the Secret to Higher IQ
 
The circumstances into which people are born isn't limited to how much money their parents have, although money certainly buys a lot of advantages poor people can't afford.


The circumstances into which people are born also includes the advantage or disadvantage of having or not having a relatively high IQ. Jobs' biological parents, for example, were at least intelligent enough to achieve academic success -- graduate school, a professorship.

[Jobs' adoptive parents also supported academic ambition.

Those are advantages that some others don't have, and they are advantages that helped endow Jobs with, for example, the intuition and curiosity to which he referred.

And why are we using Jobs and Gates as examples, anyway? Clearly, people with high IQs have greater opportunity than people who are less well endowed mentally.


As I've said, IQ itself is not inherited. That is a rather outdated, reductive approach.

I brought up Jobs to illustrate how people from modest backgrounds can do quite well, despite financial setbacks. This fact is not limited to Jobs, who admittedly, is an extreme example, but is the first one that popped into my head.

We can agree that there are a number of variables that influence individual success: IQ, determination, finances, encouragement and connections, right? And just for the hell of it, I would throw in place identity.Having money just makes life a hell of a lot easier.

Anyway, have yourself a nice day. :)

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Brain Images Reveal the Secret to Higher IQ
The integrity of neural wiring is a big factor in determining intelligence. It's also inheritable.

By Emily Singer

New research suggests that the layer of insulation coating neural wiring in the brain plays a critical role in determining intelligence. In addition, the quality of this insulation appears to be largely genetically determined, providing further support for the idea that IQ is partly inherited....

Technology Review: Brain Images Reveal the Secret to Higher IQ

I've already comment on the above, bolded.
 
[/COLOR]

As I've said, IQ itself is not inherited. That is a rather outdated, reductive approach.

I brought up Jobs to illustrate how people from modest backgrounds can do quite well, despite financial setbacks. This fact is not limited to Jobs, who admittedly, is an extreme example, but is the first one that popped into my head.

We can agree that there are a number of variables that influence individual success: IQ, determination, finances, encouragement and connections, right? And just for the hell of it, I would throw in place identity.Having money just makes life a hell of a lot easier.

Anyway, have yourself a nice day. :)

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Brain Images Reveal the Secret to Higher IQ
The integrity of neural wiring is a big factor in determining intelligence. It's also inheritable.

By Emily Singer

New research suggests that the layer of insulation coating neural wiring in the brain plays a critical role in determining intelligence. In addition, the quality of this insulation appears to be largely genetically determined, providing further support for the idea that IQ is partly inherited....

Technology Review: Brain Images Reveal the Secret to Higher IQ

I've already comment on the above, bolded.

Actually, you quite specifically said, "As I've said, IQ itself is not inherited. That is a rather outdated, reductive approach."

Obviously, no one is born with a pre-set numerical score on a test. I was simply using "IQ" as shorthand for intelligence and, as the findings of the research I posted show, yes, people do inherit the advantage or disadvantage of having or not having relatively high mental acuity.

Other factors, of course, bear on how well or poorly genetic disposition for high intelligence is developed, but, as I said, retarded parents don't give birth to genuises; i.e., who one's parents are certainly does have an effect on one's intelligence.
 
Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Brain Images Reveal the Secret to Higher IQ
The integrity of neural wiring is a big factor in determining intelligence. It's also inheritable.

By Emily Singer

New research suggests that the layer of insulation coating neural wiring in the brain plays a critical role in determining intelligence. In addition, the quality of this insulation appears to be largely genetically determined, providing further support for the idea that IQ is partly inherited....

Technology Review: Brain Images Reveal the Secret to Higher IQ

I've already comment on the above, bolded.

Actually, you quite specifically said, "As I've said, IQ itself is not inherited. That is a rather outdated, reductive approach."


I quite specifically said other things with respect to IQ, genetic and inheritence. I'm sure ed understands the context with which those comments were made. Go back and read.

Obviously, no one is born with a pre-set numerical score on a test. I was simply using "IQ" as shorthand for intelligence and, as the findings of the research I posted show, yes, people do inherit the advantage or disadvantage of having or not having relatively high mental acuity.

No it didn't. In fact the only thing they actually assert is
They found a strong correlation between the integrity of the white matter and performance on a standard IQ test.

Correlations is not consider proof, it merely provides the basis for further research.

Moreover, the only mention of inheritance is
In addition, the quality of this insulation appears to be largely genetically determined, providing further support for the idea that IQ is partly inherited.

As I said, I've already addressed that point.

Other factors, of course, bear on how well or poorly genetic disposition for high intelligence is developed, but, as I said, retarded parents don't give birth to genuises; i.e., who one's parents are certainly does have an effect on one's intelligence.


That was the common argument in favor of Eugenics and used as justification for inadequately funding public schools in poor areas. Such scientific reductionism is outdated.

If I was you, I would say 'genetics might, possibly influence individual potential, however, the extent with which genetics is a plausible variable is relatively unknown as more research needs to be carried out. Available studies do seem to indicate some correlations, but again, more research is need.

The above is also my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I've already comment on the above, bolded.

Actually, you quite specifically said, "As I've said, IQ itself is not inherited. That is a rather outdated, reductive approach."


I quite specifically said other things with respect to IQ, genetic and inheritence. I'm sure ed understands the context with which those comments were made. Go back and read.



No it didn't. In fact the only thing they actually assert is


Correlations is not consider proof, it merely provides the basis for further research.

Moreover, the only mention of inheritance is
In addition, the quality of this insulation appears to be largely genetically determined, providing further support for the idea that IQ is partly inherited.

As I said, I've already addressed that point.

Other factors, of course, bear on how well or poorly genetic disposition for high intelligence is developed, but, as I said, retarded parents don't give birth to genuises; i.e., who one's parents are certainly does have an effect on one's intelligence.


That was the common argument in favor of Eugenics and used as justification for inadequately funding public schools in poor areas. Such scientific reductionism is outdated.

If I was you, I would say 'genetics might, possibly influence individual potential, however, the extent with which genetics is a plausible variable is relatively unknown as more research needs to be carried out. Available studies do seem to indicate some correlations, but again, more research is need.

Let's don't make this more complicated than it needs to be! The only point I am making is that the circumstances into which one is born bestows upon one certain advantages or disadvantages that one has nothing to do with.

The only reason for pointing that out is to counter the blithe dismissal that "everyone has the same opportunity." No, everyone doesn't. It is clearly an advantage to be born to parents with high intelligence. That advantage provides one with dramatically greater potential than others enjoy. The same is true of being born without characteristics that are the objects of those who discriminate. And for being born into wealth.
 
Let's not cherry pick my posts then!

I realize your position. I'm not in total agreement with it. I believe there are many variables that go beyond money and genetics. Perceived social mobility is probably a bigger factor, that and upbringing. Obviously intelligence is important, but you don't have to be highly intelligent to realize the value of education and instill that into your children so they can reach their potential. It's a higher advantage to be born into people who value education,stimulate intellectual growth and instill good values.Money never hurts, either. :eusa_whistle:
 
Hitler was a socialist. He said so. the positional differences Between Mein Kampf and Das Capital are extremely limited. The Only difference between Moussolini's fascism and Stalins socialism can be found in the simple statement that Moussolini thought it quite possible to simultaneously be a good italian and a good Socialist. Mousolini claimed to be a socialist til his dying day.

You define conservatism as does every other illiterati on the left according to what your idiot leaders want not according to what is reality.

anarchy is on the extreme right of the political line Totalitarianism on the extreme left. The theft of individual liberty always happens as we move more toward the collective and further away from the individual rights that those of us on the right cherish and those on the left see as hindrance to their utopian ideal.

You have it ass backwards... ALL the studies done on authoritarian personalities reveal a very small percentage come from the left...about 1%...they are called revolutionaries

The MOST "collective" statement uttered by a US president is: "You are either with us, or against us"...

And ALL you right wingers followed....
and morons like YOU didnt fucking understand it
 
Hitler was a socialist. He said so. the positional differences Between Mein Kampf and Das Capital are extremely limited. The Only difference between Moussolini's fascism and Stalins socialism can be found in the simple statement that Moussolini thought it quite possible to simultaneously be a good italian and a good Socialist. Mousolini claimed to be a socialist til his dying day.

You define conservatism as does every other illiterati on the left according to what your idiot leaders want not according to what is reality.

anarchy is on the extreme right of the political line Totalitarianism on the extreme left. The theft of individual liberty always happens as we move more toward the collective and further away from the individual rights that those of us on the right cherish and those on the left see as hindrance to their utopian ideal.

You have it ass backwards... ALL the studies done on authoritarian personalities reveal a very small percentage come from the left...about 1%...they are called revolutionaries

The MOST "collective" statement uttered by a US president is: "You are either with us, or against us"...

And ALL you right wingers followed....
and morons like YOU didnt fucking understand it

No, we understood it completely...

We have a bunch of right wingers on this thread trying to rewrite history, saying fascism comes from the left, when 6 months ago the same right wingers were calling the people from the left that opposed the war in Iraq sissies and weaklings...

You didn't need to look any farther than the Bush administration to find strong fascist personality markers and actions... sneak attacks, torture, imprisoning people Bush and Cheney KNEW were innocent for 7 years because it helped fuel the FEAR and hatred of you right wing pea brains...

Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
Barry Goldwater (R) – Late Senator & Father of the Conservative movement
 
Let's not cherry pick my posts then!

I realize your position. I'm not in total agreement with it. I believe there are many variables that go beyond money and genetics. Perceived social mobility is probably a bigger factor, that and upbringing. Obviously intelligence is important, but you don't have to be highly intelligent to realize the value of education and instill that into your children so they can reach their potential. It's a higher advantage to be born into people who value education,stimulate intellectual growth and instill good values.Money never hurts, either. :eusa_whistle:

I didn't intend to cherry-pick your posts. I was simply puzzled by what sounded to me like a dismissal of hereditary factors and how they influence one's potential.

I also wasn't trying to isolate intelligence as a sole factor in improving or hindering one's access to opportunity. There are, as you point out, a number of factors that can influence one's life.

My point, again, is that people don't choose their parents or their upbringing; i.e., the cirucumstances of their birth. Yet, the circumstances into which they are born do affect their access to opportunity.

Note: "access." And the only reason to note that is that too many people, as I said, just blithely dismiss the topic with, "Oh, everybody has the same opportunity. Some are just too lazy to do anything." There are, of course, lazy people. But there are also people who are born with limited intelligence, who are raised in compromising circumstances, who are the objects of those who discriminate, and these are people whose access to opportunity is simply not as great as others.

The reason for affirmative action programs, the ADA, the EEOC, etc., is to limit the negative effects of discrimination. Financial aid for students exists to counter the limits poverty places on access to higher education. Federal programs to aid minority-owned businesses are another example of how the government can help open doors.

And I refuse to accept that these interventions are not necessary. Networks of 'old boys,' people giving special treatment to others of 'their own kind,' connections made by living in the right neighborhoods, going to the right schools, cannot be countered without specific rules to give others the opportunities they might have had were the circumstances of their birth different.
 

Forum List

Back
Top