Mission Statement: This blog reviews the news of the day in light of 242 years of American history. "Nationalism," a modern day pejorative, has been our country's politic throughout history, until 2008. Obama changed that narrative. Trump is seeking a return to our historical roots. Midknight Review supports this return to normality.
Dr. Fauci, head of the NIH, center stage as to the domestic battle against Ebola and an enthusiastic Democrat, denies that budget cuts have prevented the making of an Ebola vaccine.
A study funded by the US Government's National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as: "a set of neuroses rooted in fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".
Rooted in fear.
Keep those old white people afraid. You can get them to do anything.
In the future, you will need to site references. Your take-away of that report is irrelevant. That is the first point. The second is this: a "science" foundation sponsored by a progressive, anti-patriot government, is hardly worth the time spent to refute.
There is a lot written on this topic... http://www.americanscientist.org/science/pub/study-are-liberals-smarter-than---conservatives http://neuropolitics.org/defaultsep11.asp
Couple this with the fact that scientists, and people with technical degrees are more likely to be liberal 5 to 1 at least.
In your first referenced study, we have this conclusion: “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.” In other words, self-evaluated political views seem to have associated existential attachments to gray matter volume and location in the brain . . . . none of it casual.
In your second reference, we have this statement: “Political scientists and psychologists have noted that, on average, conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty.” Modernity is attractive to the conservative mind-set while post-modern conjecture is the order of the day for liberals . . . . . . . . . . and the bad news for conservatives was “what,” again? Seems to me that structured cognitive endeavors are more suitable for leadership in a real world, than the Utopian, let’s pretend our fantasies are real,” mind-set of the Liberal OneWorld Marxist dreamer.
As to your third reference, Understand that this referenced “research study” is the stated “perspective” or opinion of four individuals, “researchers” who see no difference between the criminal mind-set of Hitler/Mossuline and the conservative thinking of Ronal Reagan and Rush Limbaugh. The study is out of UC Berkley, which tells us what to expect in terms of the societal application of this report. Like I say, Marxist maggots are everywhere, in our society. There is nothing peer-reviewed about this admitted opinion hit piece, its conclusions, written by liberals denigrating conservative positions and values is nothing more than polemic fraud in the name of “research.”
Your fourth example is another opinionated hit piece, by a liberal defending liberals, a paper that is admittedly conjecture ("theory" is the word used in the paper) and is clearly neither well written nor is it peer-reviewed, as if that matters to me.
As to the immaturity of your last comment, "Cite" versus "site." Really? Your are going to push this degree of pettiness? You believe a man can say he is a woman, and that makes him a man, but you can't abide a typo of no consequence?
Reagan ignored nothing of the kind. The scientific community is the guilty party here. And they didn't ignore anything, they covered-up the 1980's, queer related, disease precisely because it had its beginnings in the gay bathhouses, across our nation. I was teaching, at the time. As teachers in the public schools, we were allowed knowledge as to whether a particular student had hepatitis or tuberculous or whatever. But HIV was off the table . . . . . . . the only disease of which we were denied knowledge.
This was not a Reagan thing, it was a liberal, do-gooder effort to protect a particular voting block in the liberal/political alliance. The scientific community knew of the blood ties to HIV and covered it up, in the beginning. My son-in-law and his brother got the disease in 1981 from blood that came from Haiti. His brother died from the disease. There was a class-action lawsuit, and the good guys won. So tell your crap lie to someone who was not there and does not know.
When doctors at the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health asked for more funding for their work on AIDS, they were routinely denied by the Reagan Administration. 70,000+ Americans dead by the time Reagan left. Reagan ignored AIDS because of his base.
Reagan understood that a great deal of his power resided in a broad base of born-again Christian Republican conservatives who embraced a virulent, demonizing homophobia. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell portrayed gay people as diseased sinners and promoted the idea that AIDS was a punishment from God
Reagan did nothing. Let 10s of thousands of Americans die.
Aids, a disease transmitted via as filthy a sexual practice as the Lefties have every invented, saw 43,000 deaths through 1988. During much of this time, the Gay lobby was successful in keeping a lid on the disease and how it was transmitted in sexual practices, outside blood transfusions. Understand that AIDs is not a contagion. A person can escape the very danger of transmission by practicing safe sex and not injecting drugs. 100% preventable. When Reagan took office, the Feds were spending 44 million a year on sexually transmitted diseases. His final budget included 1.6 billion for AIDs research, alone, more than a 1000% increase.
Understand that virtually all gay and drug victims of AIDs vote Democrat. Party politics, ain't it great !!!
First , I would not have posted my comment if I did not want readers to "take note." Secondly, it is not the remark that is disgusting but the truth of which I write . . . . . or, do you disagree? Here is a little known secret: close to 50% of all US aids cases continue to be found in the male gay community. Again, Aids is not a contagion, but is spread via a disgusting life-style. And, finally, this is a disease that affects a Democrat constituency that lives and practices Chaos and rebellion to an established and proven way of life. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. I hasten to add, none of us are above criticism when it comes to the way, the sad way, we live our lives. I have done a number of things, in the past, that should have counted for my death. But I do not make my life a political battleground, and force others to agree with me, as is the case with the Democrat's war on sane life-style conduct and free drug supply and distribution.
And to think there are those who still believe there is no serious difference between Dems and Republicans or Occupy and the Tea Party or good and evil.
Also, about your log cabin reference. Not sure what you have in mind with that. You can put me on that list. Surprised ?? The difference between the Democrat gay and the Republican gay is the regard one has for the Constitution and free speech versus the Marxist driven gay, who does not give a care about free speech and continuing dissent. The hate crime laws, were never about "hate crimes," but about the future and planned control of free speech versus heterophobia, Marxism, and free love. And today, "hate crime law" is being used to prosecute and persecute dissent. When a black man kills a white man because he is white, that murder is still murder . . . no need for an additional "hate crime" feature, no need at all. So why did the Left come up with "hate crime law?" Obviously, prosecutions of "hate crime murders" have not reduced murder by any measurable margin. But prosecutions will increase for the "violation" of hate crime law. You see it, most recently, in Houston and the use of "hate crime law" by the gay lobby, to silence conservative speech within their own churches. Enemies of the state versus the free exchange of ideas. I support the Log Cabin crowd, but not the free love and drug crowd . . . . . . reasons why I left the Democrat party.
Ebola! ISIS! Be AFRAID!
ReplyDeleteA study funded by the US Government's National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as: "a set of neuroses rooted in fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".
Rooted in fear.
Keep those old white people afraid. You can get them to do anything.
In the future, you will need to site references. Your take-away of that report is irrelevant. That is the first point. The second is this: a "science" foundation sponsored by a progressive, anti-patriot government, is hardly worth the time spent to refute.
DeleteYes, those marxists are "like maggots, they're everywhere" - JDSmithson
DeleteActually, many peer reviewed studies say exactly that... here are just 3.
This is your brain disorder, this why your mindset will become extinct.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982211002892
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n10/abs/nn1979.html
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml
There is a lot written on this topic...
http://www.americanscientist.org/science/pub/study-are-liberals-smarter-than---conservatives
http://neuropolitics.org/defaultsep11.asp
Couple this with the fact that scientists, and people with technical degrees are more likely to be liberal 5 to 1 at least.
You're a dinosaur, soon to die off.
BTW, I 'cite' references, I don't 'site' them.
In your first referenced study, we have this conclusion: “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.” In other words, self-evaluated political views seem to have associated existential attachments to gray matter volume and location in the brain . . . . none of it casual.
DeleteIn your second reference, we have this statement: “Political scientists and psychologists have noted that, on average, conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty.” Modernity is attractive to the conservative mind-set while post-modern conjecture is the order of the day for liberals . . . . . . . . . . and the bad news for conservatives was “what,” again? Seems to me that structured cognitive endeavors are more suitable for leadership in a real world, than the Utopian, let’s pretend our fantasies are real,” mind-set of the Liberal OneWorld Marxist dreamer.
As to your third reference, Understand that this referenced “research study” is the stated “perspective” or opinion of four individuals, “researchers” who see no difference between the criminal mind-set of Hitler/Mossuline and the conservative thinking of Ronal Reagan and Rush Limbaugh. The study is out of UC Berkley, which tells us what to expect in terms of the societal application of this report. Like I say, Marxist maggots are everywhere, in our society. There is nothing peer-reviewed about this admitted opinion hit piece, its conclusions, written by liberals denigrating conservative positions and values is nothing more than polemic fraud in the name of “research.”
Your fourth example is another opinionated hit piece, by a liberal defending liberals, a paper that is admittedly conjecture ("theory" is the word used in the paper) and is clearly neither well written nor is it peer-reviewed, as if that matters to me.
As to the immaturity of your last comment, "Cite" versus "site." Really? Your are going to push this degree of pettiness? You believe a man can say he is a woman, and that makes him a man, but you can't abide a typo of no consequence?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI do not allow purely personal attacks. Grow up and join the debate. Any third grader can call names and argue, "My dad is tougher than your dad.
DeleteReagan ignored AIDS until over 20,000 Americans had died.
ReplyDeleteBut tell us again ... how has Obama's response to 3 American cases been inadequate?
Reagan ignored nothing of the kind. The scientific community is the guilty party here. And they didn't ignore anything, they covered-up the 1980's, queer related, disease precisely because it had its beginnings in the gay bathhouses, across our nation. I was teaching, at the time. As teachers in the public schools, we were allowed knowledge as to whether a particular student had hepatitis or tuberculous or whatever. But HIV was off the table . . . . . . . the only disease of which we were denied knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThis was not a Reagan thing, it was a liberal, do-gooder effort to protect a particular voting block in the liberal/political alliance. The scientific community knew of the blood ties to HIV and covered it up, in the beginning. My son-in-law and his brother got the disease in 1981 from blood that came from Haiti. His brother died from the disease. There was a class-action lawsuit, and the good guys won. So tell your crap lie to someone who was not there and does not know.
When doctors at the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health asked for more funding for their work on AIDS, they were routinely denied by the Reagan Administration. 70,000+ Americans dead by the time Reagan left. Reagan ignored AIDS because of his base.
ReplyDeleteReagan understood that a great deal of his power resided in a broad base of born-again Christian Republican conservatives who embraced a virulent, demonizing homophobia. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell portrayed gay people as diseased sinners and promoted the idea that AIDS was a punishment from God
Reagan did nothing. Let 10s of thousands of Americans die.
2 Americans get Ebola... and it's Obama's fault.
Aids, a disease transmitted via as filthy a sexual practice as the Lefties have every invented, saw 43,000 deaths through 1988. During much of this time, the Gay lobby was successful in keeping a lid on the disease and how it was transmitted in sexual practices, outside blood transfusions. Understand that AIDs is not a contagion. A person can escape the very danger of transmission by practicing safe sex and not injecting drugs. 100% preventable. When Reagan took office, the Feds were spending 44 million a year on sexually transmitted diseases. His final budget included 1.6 billion for AIDs research, alone, more than a 1000% increase.
DeleteUnderstand that virtually all gay and drug victims of AIDs vote Democrat. Party politics, ain't it great !!!
Disgusting, depraved remark. Readers take note.
DeleteI suppose these people 'vote Democrat' too?
http://www.logcabin.org/issues/allies/
First , I would not have posted my comment if I did not want readers to "take note." Secondly, it is not the remark that is disgusting but the truth of which I write . . . . . or, do you disagree? Here is a little known secret: close to 50% of all US aids cases continue to be found in the male gay community. Again, Aids is not a contagion, but is spread via a disgusting life-style. And, finally, this is a disease that affects a Democrat constituency that lives and practices Chaos and rebellion to an established and proven way of life. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. I hasten to add, none of us are above criticism when it comes to the way, the sad way, we live our lives. I have done a number of things, in the past, that should have counted for my death. But I do not make my life a political battleground, and force others to agree with me, as is the case with the Democrat's war on sane life-style conduct and free drug supply and distribution.
DeleteAnd to think there are those who still believe there is no serious difference between Dems and Republicans or Occupy and the Tea Party or good and evil.
Also, about your log cabin reference. Not sure what you have in mind with that. You can put me on that list. Surprised ?? The difference between the Democrat gay and the Republican gay is the regard one has for the Constitution and free speech versus the Marxist driven gay, who does not give a care about free speech and continuing dissent. The hate crime laws, were never about "hate crimes," but about the future and planned control of free speech versus heterophobia, Marxism, and free love. And today, "hate crime law" is being used to prosecute and persecute dissent. When a black man kills a white man because he is white, that murder is still murder . . . no need for an additional "hate crime" feature, no need at all. So why did the Left come up with "hate crime law?" Obviously, prosecutions of "hate crime murders" have not reduced murder by any measurable margin. But prosecutions will increase for the "violation" of hate crime law. You see it, most recently, in Houston and the use of "hate crime law" by the gay lobby, to silence conservative speech within their own churches. Enemies of the state versus the free exchange of ideas. I support the Log Cabin crowd, but not the free love and drug crowd . . . . . . reasons why I left the Democrat party.
Delete