"Evolution produced liberals and conservatives ..."

What a steaming crock of shit!

rarely does a political forum or discussion bring extreem laughter but that did.
:lol::lol::lol:
SMC, I couldn't agree more. and so simply said.:respect:

More likely on the men's room wall at Berkley.:rolleyes:

... by someone who doesn't know what the word "evolution" means.

Have you ever tried to reason with someone who politically disagrees with you? I have spent days arguing with a Libertarian to no avail. And the Ayn Rand bunch are like religious fanatics locked into their internal paradigms.

I've always fancied calling such religious/authoritarian strains, "insulated." Nothing gets in.

More evidence that its not a "steaming crock of shit"

Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults


Ryota Kanai1, http://www.sciencedirect.com/scidiri...ties/REcor.gif, http://www.sciencedirect.com/scidiri...es/REemail.gif, Tom Feilden2, Colin Firth2 and Geraint Rees1, 3
1 University College London Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17 Queen Square, London WC1N 3AR, UK
2 BBC Radio 4, Television Centre, Wood Lane, London W12 7RJ, UK
3 Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London, 12 Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK


Received 11 January 2011;
revised 10 February 2011;
accepted 4 March 2011.
Published online: April 7, 2011.
Available online 7 April 2011.

Summary

Substantial differences exist in the cognitive styles of liberals and conservatives on psychological measures [1]. Variability in political attitudes reflects genetic influences and their interaction with environmental factors [[2] and [3]]. Recent work has shown a correlation between liberalism and conflict-related activity measured by event-related potentials originating in the anterior cingulate cortex [4]. Here we show that this functional correlate of political attitudes has a counterpart in brain structure. In a large sample of young adults, we related self-reported political attitudes to gray matter volume using structural MRI. We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala. These results were replicated in an independent sample of additional participants. Our findings extend previous observations that political attitudes reflect differences in self-regulatory conflict monitoring [4] and recognition of emotional faces [5] by showing that such attitudes are reflected in human brain structure. Although our data do not determine whether these regions play a causal role in the formation of political attitudes, they converge with previous work [[4] and [6]] to suggest a possible link between brain structure and psychological mechanisms that mediate political attitudes.


Highlights

► Political liberalism and conservatism were correlated with brain structure ► Liberalism was associated with the gray matter volume of anterior cingulate cortex ► Conservatism was associated with increased right amygdala size ► Results offer possible accounts for cognitive styles of liberals and conservatives

Your example is proof of nothing. It is just an opinion.

I asked you to provide proof of this:

Where have the Republicans stated that they only want a few very rich men to rule your country, that want childeren to work in coal mines for $6 a month, that they don't want a minimum wage, that they don't want worker's comp, they don't want retirement? (Sorry, but I won't get into the healthcare debate here. It deserves a thread of its own.)

Don't just give opinions for proof of this. Provide real concrete proof. Innuendo is not proof.

Aw come on Ila you know I was not referring to the past literaly. I am simply refering whats been said ever since Reagan, what is the ultimate objective of the conservatives movement. It is to dismantle the social welfare programs in the US. The Tea Party Congressmen are saying it right now.

Conservatives, like liberals, come in many shades and flavours. So although there is no doubt some conservatives that want to make radical changes and regressions there will be many others who like the status quo and still more falling into various positions along that line between the two ends.

I live in a very conservative area, most of my neighbors are conservative. I am friends with all of them. We don't talk about politics, however.
I can get easily riled up over the California bureaucracy, the excessive permitting requirements and the local politics. So I am part liberal and part conservative.
By the way I am leaving the Democratic Party and registering as an Independent. I am fed up with Obama and the Democrats, ditto Republicans.

Of course, I have. I do so every day. Remember, I teach at a university, where open discourse is a regular part of each day. And, notably, where the kind of arguing that is practiced by some members of this Forum, in this thread, would quickly get someone put on academic probation -- not for the positions taken, but the manner in which the discussion is carried out.

and on the outside of academia, life goes on.
amazing!:rolleyes:

The implicit anti-intellectualism aside, there's a reason people are trained for discourse in school, whether it's in kindergarten or a PhD program. It's about the "civil" in "civilization." :yes:

Perhaps a similar system should be put into place here on this forum. It would certainly curtail Tracy's juvenile diversionary tactics.

I would like to point out that I did not mention any posters in particular.

That's fine. But I would like to point out that I did.

It would be filled with posts containing actual information and this information would be presented without tricks and without the condescension Tracy is so good at. Like the Middle East thread which is blessedly devoid of Tracy's poison.

I am rather fond of the idea of not having to listen to any more of Tracy's--or anyone else's--vapid, entitled, self-satisfied garbage.

I disagree. This site is open to anyone that wants to join and abide by the rules. Everyone is allowed to have and state opinions, no matter what others think of those opinions. And members are allowed to state their opinions in whatever manner they choose, provided they do not break the rules. Each member has his or her own unique way of giving opinions and it is not the intention of this site to censor the manner in which opinions are written.

Feel free to put anyone on your ignore list with whom you disagree and do not wish to read their posts.

ila is correct. It doesn't change the fact, though, that independent of the actual positions expressed, the "manner" is almost always a reflection of something important to the discussion. One learns a lot by paying attention to how, for instance (and especially), some in a discussion ignore points brought up in the discourse as rebuttal, and even more important, how some employ debating tricks to deflect attention away from those rebuttals.

I would like to suggest that this forum is primarily for entertainment purposes.
We are here to chat about tgirls and other issues of interest. If someone makes outrageous egregious statements, they can be ignored. For me it's interesting to see how other people think and how they put it into words.
I don't think we are here to present carefully crafted well documented presentations.
Just imagine we are friends at a local bar having a pint, ok? :)

That doesn't change anything I wrote. Regardless of why people express opinions in the way that they do, it is still the case that how they do so is quite revealing. That goes for a discussion over a pint no more or less than one here, the primary difference being that at the bar no one can hide from what she or he says or how she or he says it.

Fun or fanaticism ?
 

I would prefer to see things Randolph's way, that is this as a Forum for fun, entertainment and fantasy / sexual stimulation. But he seems to shift stance too readily - one minute he takes a cynically Conservative position, next he views the Forum as having ideally a 'fun-factory' role.

But we have the additional arena available for hot debate. I can take it or leave it, can't I ? I do not have to be drawn into political polarisation or arguing about about the minutiae of contentious issues, do I?

But have fun, anyway, fellers if it makes you feel good ! Fran certainly likes to stir things up !
:respect:

1. No
2. Yes - and get out of their way when it comes to drilling in the gulf of mex
3. Yes - of course, the definition of 'truly needed' is up for debate
4. No, the government is too big because it's too big, not because we're not paying enough
5. No
6. I don't know what they make. Many of them don't deserve any kind of compensation. But as far as our debt, I'm sure whatever they make is far less than a drop in the bucket.
7. hmmm, it kind of makes sense to do this. We are not a country who just gives our former presidents the boot and sends them out on the street. Might not be such a bad idea for the current president though
8. Yes
10. Absolutely

scary... we actually agree on some things

Ok, let's see if there are any empirical truths. Possibly this: It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency."

No matter what your party, is this ever false?

They are atheists, yet paradoxically, you are correct. I tried to argue with some of them that free will is an illusion using scientific observations. They pride themselves on being rational, so they should have considered the scientific evidence. Yet they also pride themselves on having free will. They couldn't get beyond the assertion that they have free will because well... they just do. Even though they acknowledged everything else non-living in the universe does not have free will. So evidently these atheists believed there was something supernatural going in within our brains.

Attention all: this is a trap. Tracy Coxx wants you to believe that a national deficit, and borrowing, is the same as household debt and borrowing. In fact, the differences are profound.

Oh, and just to preempt it, Tracy Coxx will likely write: "Where did I write that?"

BS. All we ask for is a little personal responsibility from the public, and fiscal responsibility from the government.

Cheers to that buddy :respect: And let's all buy another round for Fran :yes:

The TLB staff can place words in my mouth and change the meaning of what I wrote, then state the obvious that I would say didn't say it. It is obvious so I won't.

So anyway, is the statement above in quotes an empirical statement, or does it depend on one's point of view? If it does depend on a viewpoint, can someone please explain what viewpoint, and within that viewpoint how it's rational to continuously operate in a deficit?

Well, I agree, the government deficit is different from private debt for one simple reason, the government can print money! By printing money the government inflates the value of the money and thus reduces the actual debt. The government can get away with this for extended periods of time as long as the inflation does not become excessive (ie late 1970s). By printing money and borrowing more money the government can provide the populace with the services it desires and conduct the wars it desires.
Sooner or later there is a day of reckoning and the government either has to cut expenses or raise taxes or both. The Clinton administration succeeded in balancing the budget and the deficit could have been reduced to reasonable levels. Then Bush came along and went on a wild spending spree and irresponsible tax cuts, The deficit soared as the economy collapsed. Obama inherited a massive financial mess.
According to Keynsian theory, the way to recover from an economic downturn is for the government to spend lots of money, which is what Obama did. Did it work? Well, not very well because much of the money went into the stock market instead of into the economy. :innocent:

Were the United States never to incur debt as a nation except during a "national emergency," nearly everything -- including things Tracy Coxx probably would like to continue to have provided -- would disappear, unless:

a. "national emergency" were defined to include all those things
b. taxes were raised to their highest levels ever

Even the founders expected the United States to run a deficit. Read Alexander Hamilton. Countries operate this way; the argument that seeks to make it equivalent to continuing to use your personal credit care, whether that argument is stated explicitly or ghosted, is a diversion from the real discussion.

So, Tracy Coxx, as you've been asked before: Let's assume the United States ceases all deficit spending. List here what you're willing to see disappear. National defense? Federal highway maintenance? Air traffic control? What? Or will you list the teensy little ideological budget cuts like the Republicans in Congress like to pretend really make a difference in the overall level of spending?

It's more than theory; it has, to use Tracy Coxx's word, been proven empirically. You can't use the Obama stimulus plan as a measure precisely because not that much was actually spent. A massive public works program, like that during the Great Depression, would do exactly what Keynes "theorized," and put the United States in a better competitive position with respect to the emerging economies that are dealing with twenty-first century problems (while this country argues over Planned Parenthood).

Today, our corporate masters don't want to invest in creating jobs here when they can get the work done in China for a fraction of the cost. Instead of pouring billions into the banks, what if we had invested in energy efficient infrastructure and companies here in the US that make solar panels, wind machines and hydrothermal. Instead, China is taking over the solar panel industry and little Denmark is making the wind machines.
Oh well, our problems will be solved when Donald Trump is President. :rolleyes:

Donald Trump isn't running for president. It's a publicity stunt to build ratings for his asinine show on NBC.

I dunno man. He seems serious to me. Although he is himself asinine what with all this birther bullshit.

January 29, 2011 | From an article in Alternet.org



Ayn Rand was not only a schlock novelist, she was also the progenitor of a sweeping “moral philosophy” that justifies the privilege of the wealthy and demonizes not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the lackluster middle-classes as well.
Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor).
As Michael Ford of Xavier University's Center for the Study of the American Dream wrote, “In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.”
Her ideas about government intervention in some idealized pristine marketplace serve as the basis for so much of the conservative rhetoric we see today. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” said Paul Ryan, the GOP's young budget star at a D.C. event honoring the author. On another occasion, he proclaimed, “Rand makes the best case for the morality of democratic capitalism.” :rolleyes:

Also--- http://exiledonline.com/atlas-shriek...n-rands-heart/

Printing money deflates the value of our money, and the dollar amount of the debt goes up. But regardless, the debt to other countries in non-funnymoney values remains the same.

fixed it for you.

The tax cuts should have been followed by spending cuts, so you're making my point. Whether by over spending or undertaxing, it is not rational to operate in a deficit.

A couple of days ago, I posted the following:

"So, Tracy Coxx, as you've been asked before: Let's assume the United States ceases all deficit spending. List here what you're willing to see disappear. National defense? Federal highway maintenance? Air traffic control? What? Or will you list the teensy little ideological budget cuts like the Republicans in Congress like to pretend really make a difference in the overall level of spending?"

We're still waiting for your answer.

The debt can be paid back in cheaper dollars.

Tracy,

Quote:

Printing money deflates the value of our money, and the dollar amount of the debt goes up. But regardless, the debt to other countries in non-funnymoney values remains the same.

The dollar amount of the debt does not go up, the "value" of the debt goes down by printing more money.

"Deflates the value of our money" True, what I meant to say is that printing more money can cause inflation. That is, a rise in the price of goods, which is happening right now while we are still in a recession. All the money poured into the economy is being negated by rising prices. Here in California, gas is over four dollars a gallon.

Moral philosophy? Absurd. Unless impoverishing the working people is moral.

Democratic capitalism? That is an oxymoron.

Yes, the debt would have to be paid back in 'cheaper' dollars. But that doesn't mean the debt is smaller now. I don't have time to look up the actual numbers, but let me try and illustrate where I'm coming from. Let's define the dollar as 2008$ and 2009$. For this example, let's assume we have a balanced budget and the debt remains constant at 10 trillion 2008$.

So then in 2009 the treasury prints a trillion dollars. Is America suddenly richer? No.

11 2009$ = 10 2008$ (again, not real numbers, just an example)

So in 2009 the debt, which remained constant, is now 11 trillion 2009$. Yes the dollars are now cheaper dollars. i.e. 1 2009$ = .91 2008$. But all that means is we have to pay more cheaper dollars to pay off the debt.

So the dollar amount of the debt DOES go up (in the new value of the dollar). But the value of the debt remains the same. (assuming a balanced budget). The value of the dollar drops, so in turn we owe other countries more, so the overall value (in terms of what we owe other countries) remains the same.

The money poured into the economy is not negated by rising prices. Like you said in the same quote, it causes rising prices.

So anyway, where does this leave us on this?
It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency.

And the wait continues. Tracy Coxx logs back on, reposts this statement about national emergencies, but won't tell us what Tracy Coxx would actually cut of substance from the federal budget. It's political cowardice, no different from the ideologues who Tracy Coxx defends either implicitly or explicitly.

Tracy During the great depression, the Republicans were very resistant to increase debt in order to stimulate the economy. Consequently many banks failed and millions of people lost their savings (no FDIC). FDR finally did get a modest stimulus going but it was inadequate to really get recovery. It took WWII to get the country back on its feet with a four trillion dollar war debt!
We managed that huge debt and the economy grew rapidly at the same time the maximum tax rate for the rich was seventy percent! During those years we were rebuilding the free world including Japan and Germany. Times were good and the middle class prospered.
Now days the cost of an aging population, exploding retirement costs, obscene military expenses and the loss of working class jobs is threatening the country with bankruptcy. The government keeps borrowing more and more money to cover expenses and stimulate the economy. Why? Because we have a highly distorted tax system. The rich are not paying their fair share, if they did we would not have these massive deficits.
Capitalism is based on economic growth. Growth depends on a populace that can afford to buy what the capital investment produces. If we screw the populace with a distorted tax system that favors the rich then capitalism will fail.

FYI for all those who follow this thread: Tracy Coxx was on four hours ago (I write this at 10:38 pm EDT in the United States) and has yet to answer the pressing question. Perhaps Tracy Coxx has been delayed by some kind of "national emergency"?

Tracy It appears that Tracy is posing the question to other followers of the thread. Is it necessary for her to answer her own question?

I asked a different question of Tracy. But seriously, Randolph, I know you could figure that out. Don't you want to know what Tracy would cut instead of simply listening to the repetition of this ideological "national emergency" tripe?

At issue here is intellectual honesty. It is simple to throw out a question such as that which Tracy Coxx has now posed multiple times, especiall when done so demagogically. But the question begs an answer to my question from the person who poses it; otherwise, it is nothing but dissembling rhetoric.

Those who now sit in the federal legislature and argue against spending without taking real positions on real spending cuts, and who pretend that there is some kind of magical mathematics that wizards like Harry Potter can somehow make work that allows all the problems of the budget to be solved without raising a single cent of new revenue, are intellectually dishonest. So, too, are their acolytes.

Tracy Coxx, answer the question: Let's assume the United States ceases all deficit spending. List here what you're willing to see disappear. National defense? Federal highway maintenance? Air traffic control? What? Or will you list the teensy little ideological budget cuts like the Republicans in Congress like to pretend really make a difference in the overall level of spending?

$4 trillion war debt? Where did you get that? Besides, during the Great Depression, various political sides will have different approaches to the problem. Democrats will want to spend ourselves out of debt. Republicans will want to cut spending and tighten our belt. A Great Depression is a national emergency though, and contrary to what TLB staff will have you believe I'm not talking about national emergencies. I'm talking about the word you bolded in my quote in your post: routinely. So again, in normal times, is it ever a good practice to routinely run a deficit? That is the pressing question.

btw, in the attached image, you'll see that the debt didn't reach $4 trillion until about 1990.

The WWII cost has been estimated to be about five trillion dollars, most of it borrowed dollars (bonds). The war debt exceeded the GDP, the current debt has yet to exceed the GDP.
Its important to keep in mind that we have a far larger economy now than we had in 1945. The skyrocketing debt after Clinton has been the result of irresponsible management of the country by our government. Free-market ideology and endless wars is destroying our country.