How about some liberal tutelage?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Churchill said if you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart and if you're not a conservative at forty, you have no brain.

I think there is lot of truth to this observation. Most people would agree that they aquire usefull information as they grow older; we call it wisdom. As Churchill observed, the average person tends to grow more conservative in their political views as they get older.

Young people are typically not invested in the status quo: no house, little personal property, little or no time invested in a career, and usually no family - "foot loose and fancy free". Their elders are invested and are concerned about rapid and dangerous change lest it wreck their plans and their lives at a time in their lives when they cannot recover.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Young people are typically not invested in the status quo: no house, little personal property, little or no time invested in a career, and usually no family - "foot loose and fancy free". Their elders are invested and are concerned about rapid and dangerous change lest it wreck their plans and their lives at a time in their lives when they cannot recover.

It's fair to point out that changes in political views may be partly tied to economics. It's easy to be an advocate of a confiscatory progressive income tax for the rich when you're in college and paying no income tax.

I think the increased wisdom that hopefully comes with age has more to do with the increased likelihood of becoming a conservative. Liberalism appears to be the kinder political philosophy to a young person who has not learned the lessons of life. As you get older you come to understand that encouraging someone to become addicted to social welfare is not an act of kindness.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

So yes, on average conservatives do tend to be thinkers and liberals do tend to be feelers. That doesn't mean that liberals are stupid; obviously many liberals are highly intelligent and some conservatives are stupid. I think the important observation is which is dominant in the decision making process, rational thought or emotion.

I think for many liberals their emotions are dominant over their rational thought processes; this is why women are significantly more liberal than men. Women are just as smart as men but very often they make decisions based on emotion rather than reason, so they tend to vote for liberal policies that don't hold up under rational scrutiny.

You just are not thinking clearly! LOL

That really is a bunch of bunk. Show me a link backing your 'feelings' on the matter!

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Young people are typically not invested in the status quo: no house, little personal property, little or no time invested in a career, and usually no family - "foot loose and fancy free". Their elders are invested and are concerned about rapid and dangerous change lest it wreck their plans and their lives at a time in their lives when they cannot recover.

Actually this is closer to the truth joe blow.

Listen to old I B .... he picks a winner ever now and again!

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by WTF

You just are not thinking clearly! LOL

That really is a bunch of bunk. Show me a link backing your 'feelings' on the matter!


Actually this is closer to the truth joe blow.

Listen to old I B .... he picks a winner ever now and again!

Try to be more specific. Do you not believe that women are more emotional than men? Is this bunk? Do you really need sources to tell you the obvious? What next, if I say water is wet are you going to require sources?

[JD Barleycorn]

WTF, you are posting a list without explanation. Would you care to actually take some time and describe what you're feeling instead of posting a nebulous list?

As for the proof, do you have time for a couple of years of sociology and psychology. Your opinion falls outside the norm except for political science people who want to ignore history, biology, and common sense. Remember, there are always exceptions to the rule that tend to stand out; Margaret Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth II for a couple. Of course the liberal elite tend to politically incorrectly position them as bitches for being more rational than emotional.

As for your other proclivities; dildo or otherwise I have never felt a need to do things like that to myself. I'm not judging you so go on and have fun with yourself. Me. I like find women to fun things with but there is nothing wrong with what you like to do.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Remember, there are always exceptions to the rule that tend to stand out; Margaret Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth II for a couple. Of course the liberal elite tend to politically incorrectly position them as bitches for being more rational than emotional.

Don't forget that other magnificent English bitch: Elizabeth I!

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Don't forget that other magnificent English bitch: Elizabeth I!

If you haven't seen Elizabeth: The Golden Age, you should. I'm attaching a link to a clip of a scene that I love.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPhE7...eature=related

[I B Hankering]

+1

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

WTF, you are posting a list without explanation. Would you care to actually take some time and describe what you're feeling instead of posting a nebulous list?
.

LOL...I am not feeling shit. I go where the results lead. Your premise is wrong. You have provided nothing but what you '. The very thing you are railing aganist!LOLfeel'

Originally Posted by WTF

Your premise is wrong.

Conservative are not thinkers and liberals feelers.

So I will not resort to insults , you are just ignorant in this matter and I will help educate you , if you take the time. There as been much scientific research in the matter and if you were to purchase Michael Shermer's , "The Believing Brain'' and turn to page 237 you would understand that liberal and conservatives rank 5 moral things in different order. That is not saying one is right or wrong, it is just a fact and explains our different set of beliefs. btw they are:
1) Harm/Care
2)Fairness?reciprocity
3)in-group/loyalty
4)Authority/respect
5)Purity/sanctity


If all you were trying to do was subtle insult, than disregard and go fuc yourself!

[WTF]

JD....here is a good article, try not to be such an asshole and read it with an open heart

http://cbdr.cmu.edu/seminar/haidt.pdf

Mobility and diversity make a morality based on shared valuation of traditions and
institutions quite difficult (Whose traditions? Which institutions?). These factors help explain the
electoral map of the United States in the 2004 presidential election. When viewed at the county
level, the great majority of counties that voted for John Kerry are near waterways, where ports
and cities are usually built and where mobility and diversity are greatest. Areas with less
mobility and less diversity generally have the more traditional five-foundation morality, and
therefore were more likely to vote for George W. Bush – and to tell pollsters that their reason
was “moral values.”
We agree with Jost et al. (2003) that much of conservatism can be understood as
motivated social cognition, but we add this caveat: many of these motives are moral motives.
The same, of course, goes for liberals. Social justice researchers might therefore benefit from
stepping out of the “good versus evil” mindset that is often present in our conferences, our
academic publications, and our private conversations. One psychological universal (part of the
ingroup foundation) is that when you call someone evil you erect a protective moral wall
between yourself and the other, and this wall prevents you from seeing or respecting the other’s

point of view (Baumeister, 1997, calls this process “the myth of pure evil.”)

[timpage]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

We are all aware that some of us are right thinking conservatives and other are all feeling liberals but I really am curious about this. Can the liberals here speak directly to the point without insult, blaming Bush, or trying to change the subject about our concerns. Can you make a convincing argument about some of the following topics;

Should Obama's uncle be deported? He is an illegal and was nailed with a DWI.

On the payroll tax cut the GOP wanted to extend the cut for 12 months and the democrats only wanted 2 months. How can the democrats say that the GOP was trying to take money from the taxpayers?

The payroll tax is our Social Security payment matched by our employer up to $100,000 in income. The talk is about cutting 2% of the 6.2% that we pay which leaves us paying 4.2% for the next two months. Won't this personally bite us in the ass 20-30-40 years from now? As a nation, where do we get the extra $100 billion that this cut is costing the trust fund?

Three questions, can we get some serious answers?

w

Seriously? Obama's uncle's DWI is a topic of importance in the election that we should all consider? Are you retarded? We didn't consider Bush's DWI in Maine but you want to whack Obama for an Uncle he"s never met? Kind of undercuts the seriousness of the rest of your post since you are obviously a fucking moron, but let's move on.....

On the payroll tax cut, ask your reps asshat, they caved on the bill. Why did they think it was a bill good enough to pass? Maybe because all of the bullshit they wanted to tag on to the 12 month bill had absolutely no chance of passing? Oh, wait, I forget....idiots like you don't care if the government has enough money to operate, in fact, it would better if the don't. Moron.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by WTF

I do not need a get out of jail card free in the Sandbox...Go fuc yourself OliviaHoward, now quick hurry up and post accusing me of stalking your posts......right after you mention me in them. lol Your paranoia acting up again?

Paranoid? No. You do stalk my posts. But should I have comment on your comment? No. You're right. Please accept my apology. Done.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Factual error ekim008: Bush did not have complete control of anything for six years. Only @ 4.4 years When the dust from the 2000 election cleared the Senate was 50/50 until Jim Jeffords switched from being a member of the GOP to an independent who voted with the democrats. This gave control of the Senate to the democrats until 2004. The election gave the GOP razor thin control until 2006 when the democrats took control back. The House was also taken over by the democratic party. So your statement about Bush have complete control for six years is just wrong. At best, the GOP had control of the House and Senate for two years and that was by one single vote in the Senate. So you can blame Bush I guess for anything he did between 2005 (when the terms began) to 2007.

I don’t know where you got your numbers. They are wrong.

106th 1999-2001 45 dem 55 rep
107th 2001-2003 50 50 rep vice president breaks ties
108th 2003-2005 48 dem 51 rep 1 ind
109th 2005-2007 44 dem 55 rep 1 ind

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html

Jeffords left the rep party May 24, 2001. The dems controlled the senate for @ 1.6 years.
The repubs controlled the senate from Jan 2001 until Jun 2001 (@ .4 year for Bush) and from Jan. 2003 until Jan of 2007 (4 years for Bush). The repubs controlled the house from Jan 1995 until Jan 2007.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

It's fair to point out that changes in political views may be partly tied to economics. It's easy to be an advocate of a confiscatory progressive income tax for the rich when you're in college and paying no income tax.

I think the increased wisdom that hopefully comes with age has more to do with the increased likelihood of becoming a conservative. Liberalism appears to be the kinder political philosophy to a young person who has not learned the lessons of life. As you get older you come to understand that encouraging someone to become addicted to social welfare is not an act of kindness.

Increased wisdom? How about increased security. Old people have set up a social security system that young people have to pay for. They have not put enough into the system that they are going to take out of and they want young people to make up the difference.

Sounds to me like the old are 'advocate of a confiscatory progressive income tax'' on the young.

This is the crux of the difference between OWS and the Tea Party. Not that you have the desire to see it.

[WTF]

post mvd