The Mind of a Republican (why they are evil)

[Edward]

According to an AFP article, "The brain neurons of liberals and conservatives fire differently when confronted with tough choices, suggesting that some political divides may be hard-wired, according a study released Sunday." I am inclined to believe this is true as it supports my belief that conservatives are inherently evil. If the difference between conservatives and liberals is a result of how we are hard-wired we may be able to treat conservatives and even cure them. Finding this cure may take time but doing so will make the world a much better place.

The article describes the test as follows: "Using electroencephalographs, which measure neuronal impulses, the researchers examined activity in a part of the brain -- the anterior cingulate cortex -- that is strongly linked with the self-regulatory process of conflict monitoring. The match-up was unmistakable: respondents who had described themselves as liberals showed "significantly greater conflict-related neural activity" when the hypothetical situation called for an unscheduled break in routine. Conservatives, however, were less flexible, refusing to deviate from old habits "despite signals that this ... should be changed." This kind of research can help us deal with conservatism and allow us to go to the heart of what Jefferson said when he described the two types of people (i.e., the evil type who doesn't trust the people and the good type that believes in democracy and representative government). These kinds of studies should continue since they have much potential in helping us in finding a cure for conservatism. This type of study may also help us to understand why the Mark Foley's and Larry Craig's of the world are attracted to conservatism.

 

[Avatar4321]

The amusing thing about your post is you thinks completely backwards.

Its the conservatives who trust the people. The the liberals who want to take the votes away from the people and put them in the hands of judges.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Of course what begs to be ask is WHY th Conservative thought pattern would be the one that is "inherently" evil. If this supposed condition is treatable, then that would mean we could treat the Liberals as well, why we could wipe out left and right with one fell swoop. The moderates would win every time.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Another take would be since we now have "medical" evidence that Liberals are mentally deficient, we can bar them from ever being elected to begin with.

 

[Edward]

Of course what begs to be ask is WHY th Conservative thought pattern would be the one that is "inherently" evil. If this supposed condition is treatable, then that would mean we could treat the Liberals as well, why we could wipe out left and right with one fell swoop. The moderates would win every time.

The problem with that is that liberals believe in freedom, liberty, democracy and self-government and trust the people while conservatives do not. There is no reason to cure them or their willingness to use critical thinking but there is a reason to cure conservatives. You deceive yourself if you buy into the left-right-moderate crap fed to you by the one-party system that operates in this country. They want you to believe that there is a left and a right and they even label them as such because it makes it easier to control people's beliefs including the beliefs of so-called moderates who fall right in the middle of this one party system. Yet, the real problem isn't between the right, the left or moderates but between conservatives whether they are Democrats, Republicans or other. It is them who we must deal and those who you claim to be moderates (yet who adhere to the ideology of this party) are in reality the exact opposite.

Like I have already said, anyone who supports the Constitution has no claim to being a moderate. In fact, they oppose the very principle of liberalism and can be classed as a conservative. There are people who support the Bill of Rights while holding a strong distaste for the Constitution itself and they are the ones who would have refused to sign it or to ratify it in 1789 because they would have seen it for what it is. On a sub-conscious level liberals know what the Constitution represents whether they are Republican, Democrats or whatever party they choose to affiliate with. Liberals of 1789 were strong opponents of the Constitution because they understood what it represents. Today, one party has taken control of the government and we do not even realize it. It's the party of the Nationalists or the conservatives.

 

[Larkinn]

What a stupid thread.

 

[hjmick]

What a stupid thread.

 

[CSM]

What a stupid thread.

Probably the only thing you have ever posted that I agree with. repped accordingly.

 

[Bern80]

and yet you Edward (a liberal) are the closest thing to evil there is on this board. No one else routinely calls people asshole, retarded, etc or people's wives whores or their children bastards. Guess you're just wired wrong, huh?

Further there is absolutely zero doubt that it is the left that trusts people less. They are constantly trying to pass legislation that is 'for our own good'. Essentially legislating the decisions people can legally makes rather than trust people to make the right ones. See John Edwards healthcare proposal that would require people to see the doctor once a year as an excellent example.

 

[Shogun]

What a stupid thread.

no shit.

 

[Vintij]

It does not matter what party you are in, most democrats seem to do things based on research or substantial quantified evidence, where as conservatives tend to do things for the betterment of the party.

To me, its not a football game. Republicans have had power because conservatives view an election in the same way they view a football game. They just want the party to win because it is thier party.

Now when you bring up liberalism, that is what kills the moderate democratic party, because they are so against anything conservative....it hurts them in the elections because they are on planet left and are unwilling to move. Thats liberalism, but dont confuse all democrats with far left nutjobs. Anyone too far to the left or right, is not to be trusted.

I do wish normal republicans did a little bit more research before they voted. Blind party voting, hurts everyone. (Bush's second term is proof) The two party system will always be opposite, maybe a third party is needed?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It'd be nice if Edward would label his threads correctly and consistent with his stated beliefs.

If Edward says "it supports my belief that conservatives are inherently evil" then he must also believe Democrats are inherently evil as well because he earlier stated:

The two major political parties are in reality the same party with minor disagreements yet their core philosophy is the same. (Post #61 from the ACLU perv thread)

 

[Bern80]

It does not matter what party you are in, most democrats seem to do things based on research or substantial quantified evidence, where as conservatives tend to do things for the betterment of the party.

You've got to be kidding me. Let's look at the dems 'research' shall we. some on the left want to ban guns because obviously it will reduce crime. Oops, wrong.

Well how about global warming which is largely attrubitable to man. Oops wrong again.

yeah democratic policy is based on real sound research.

To me, its not a football game. Republicans have had power because conservatives view an election in the same way they view a football game. They just want the party to win because it is thier party.

And the dems don't view it that way?

I do wish normal republicans did a little bit more research before they voted. Blind party voting, hurts everyone. (Bush's second term is proof) The two party system will always be opposite, maybe a third party is needed?

Maybe no parties are needed. We have a two predominant parties for a reason. It helps insure that people are elected by a pluarlity. If you have more parties then you are going to wind up with Presidents that were elected by less than half of the voters somewhat like what happened with Clinton when he ran against Perot and Bush

 

[Vintij]

You've got to be kidding me. Let's look at the dems 'research' shall we. some on the left want to ban guns because obviously it will reduce crime. Oops, wrong.

Actually, you would have to bring up the crime rate percentage dividend to say "oops, wrong". Then you would have to divide that by the number of guns in varying cities in relation to the population of that city. Then you can say oops wrong.

Well how about global warming which is largely attrubitable to man. Oops wrong again.

yeah democratic policy is based on real sound research.

Actually, to say wrong would go beyond our scientific knowledge and even our capability of using technology to prove that statment. You are about 15-20 years ahead of yourself because despite a majority of democrats and the scientific community's belief that climate change can be affected by humans, we are still far from being able to test the ionosphere with real evidence in favor of or against the claim that anthropogenic global warming does exist. So basically, you cant say wrong because first of all I never brought up climate change and secondly you dont know enough about it.


And the dems don't view it that way?



Maybe no parties are needed. We have a two predominant parties for a reason. It helps insure that people are elected by a pluarlity. If you have more parties then you are going to wind up with Presidents that were elected by less than half of the voters somewhat like what happened with Clinton when he ran against Perot and Bush

This was more of a rhetorical question. I dont see a third party emerging, partly because I agree with your perot analogy. I also dont see a single party emerging because that would just not work. What I do see is further and further division of the two major partys, until they are so far from eachother.......bipartisan dimplomacy between congress and the executive branch will be increasingly difficult.

 

[Shogun]

There are dems that support the second amendment just like there are republicans who support gay marriage. It's beyond retarded to say that conservatives or liberals are simply evil. It's not black and white like that and Id be willing to bet that most of you, if having a political discussion face to face over a drink, would be more willing to entertain common ideas with political opposites than trolling the internet from behind an I.P. mask.

 

[Bern80]

This was more of a rhetorical question. I dont see a third party emerging, partly because I agree with your perot analogy. I also dont see a single party emerging because that would just not work. What I do see is further and further division of the two major partys, until they are so far from eachother.......bipartisan dimplomacy between congress and the executive branch will be increasingly difficult.

That's why I don't want even a one party system. I want a NO party system. the job of our legislative leaders is to make policy that is best for the citizens of the country.

As to your rebuttals. Research I have read supports both of my statements. You however stated the dems make policy decisions based on research. You can not deny that the left advocates both of those; stricter gun control (the idea being a safer society) and asserts that man is the predominant cause of global warming. Yet had dems actually done the research you claim they do they would have found that the actually research either doesn't support their policy or is at the very least inconclusive. Hence why I beleive it is incorrect to imply that dems are these objective and research driven folk because their policy endeavors most certainly don't reflect that.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What I do see is further and further division of the two major partys, until they are so far from eachother.......bipartisan dimplomacy between congress and the executive branch will be increasingly difficult.

Good point. That's why state and local governments are so important and why we need less big government. We need to get away from doing everything on the federal level so people are able to become closer to many of the issues - so it isn't all just a partisan issue.

 

[Larkinn]

You've got to be kidding me. Let's look at the dems 'research' shall we. some on the left want to ban guns because obviously it will reduce crime. Oops, wrong.

Well how about global warming which is largely attrubitable to man. Oops wrong again.

yeah democratic policy is based on real sound research.

So are you claiming that global warming is NOT largely attributable to man? If so, what do you think it is largely attributable too?

By the way, as far as gun control goes, there are many many reasons why people think that more guns means more gun crime. You incorrectly assume the other "side" has no merit to their position.

 

[Bern80]

So are you claiming that global warming is NOT largely attributable to man? If so, what do you think it is largely attributable too?

Research conudcucted in 1984 by Willi Dansgaard of Denmark and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland revealed through the study of oxygen isotopes in ice cores that between the known 90,000 year ice ages there is also a clear climate cycle that occurs every 1,500 years plus or minus 500 years. According to the ice cores this cycle has been going on for roughly 250,000 years. Based on the 1500 year cycle we are now about 150 years into a moderate warming trend. This trend will continue for several more centuries. They also noted that while temperature rose on average over that period that it does so erratcially. In many of these cycles the majority of the warming occurred within 20 or sometimes even 10 years. In terms of the current cycle we saw one of those sudden increases between the years 1920 and 1940. Further, if humans are the predominant cause of warming due to CO2 emission than it should be even warmer than it is now.

By the way, as far as gun control goes, there are many many reasons why people think that more guns means more gun crime. You incorrectly assume the other "side" has no merit to their position.

You incorrectly assume that I am assumming anything at all.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So are you claiming that global warming is NOT largely attributable to man? If so, what do you think it is largely attributable too?

Largely the sun.

CO2 has periodically increased significantly in the atmosphere long before man ever came along with his man-made CO2 emissions.

You might next ask where did those ancient CO2 emissions come from? Dinosauers farting? Probably. A good portion of today's emissions come from livestock and humans. But probably mainly from warming ocean waters, carbon from warming soils, and methane from melting permafrost. In other words, the increase in CO2 came after the temperature increased.