Finally I understand the difference between an intelligent and unintelligent Repuke.

[Mike 03]

An intelligent Repuke may not agree with everything our President wants to do, but nevertheless wants Obama to succeed as our President of these United States.

An ignorant, stupid Repuke wants President Obama (I love typing those two words) to fail. Apparently people like Rush Limbaugh or perhaps goons like Hannity, Mitch McConnell, and my own senators Kyl and maybe McCain would be in that group.

One thing I DO respect about most modern economists is that despite the fact they are conservative, they respect the hell out of Obama and DO want him to succeed. Every morning I hear them on Bloomberg radio. Regardless of nationality or party affiliation, they realize that this moment in history is like all of us standing on the edge of a razor blade.

Only someone who was very Un-American would be hoping that our great President would fail at a moment like this. It almost sounds like treason to be praying for the failure of our leaders at this time.

[phantom power]

1. McCain threw his support to the Clinton confirmation today.

In the name of "Getting to work." I'll give a nod to that.

Kyl has always been a 110% GOP tool. I'll give him credit for total consistency.

[angrycarpenter]

2. RW radio has never had a problem with ruining our country.

Chaos is their bread and butter. Plus their listeners would abandon them if they ever suggested that we support anything Obama does. When it all comes down to it all they believe in is ratings and money.

[sam sarrha]

3. "Conservatives" are unfortunately Born that way.. it isn't a Choice, they lack 'Fluidity in their

thinking, QUITE POSSABLY because of Organic physical deficiencies in essential cognitive structures of the brain.

my personal view of this subject..if we cant legislate out the Phenomenological IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY

IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY
First defined by German sociologist Robert Michels (1876-1936), this refers to the inherent tendency of all complex organizations, including radical or socialist political parties and labour unions, to develop a ruling clique of leaders with interests in the organization itself rather than in its official aims. These leaders, Michels argued, came to desire leadership and its status and rewards more than any commitment to goals. Inevitably, their influence was conservative, seeking to preserve and enhance the organization and not to endanger it by any radical action. Michels based his argument on the simple observation that day-to-day running of a complex organization by its mass membership was impossible. Therefore, professional full-time leadership and direction was required. In theory the leaders of the organization were subject to control by the mass membership, through delegate conferences and membership voting, but, in reality, the leaders were in the dominant position. They possessed the experience and expertise in running the organization, they came to control the means of communication within the organization and they monopolized the public status of representing the organization. It became difficult for the mass membership to provide any effective counterweight to this professional, entrenched, leadership. Michels also argued that these inherent organizational tendencies were strengthened by a mass psychology of leadership dependency, he felt that people had a basic psychological need to be led. See: OLIGARCHY / ,

then we must consider that.. they need to be put them in walled Reservations and prevente them from breeding, its the only way to humanely deal with them. we are all Doomed if they are left to continue to FUCK everything up and profit from it,they are obsessive compulsive sociopaths and some psychopathic and all out of control." :shrug:
-------

search info.. brain differenceshttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=liberal+brain+differences&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
mine didnt carry over, here is a list

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/376166/brain_d...
"snip....Data analysis shows that liberals are about 5 times as likely as conservatives to show brain activity in the areas of the brain related to detecting conflicts between habitual tendency and a more appropriate response. Liberals are also more than twice as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.Simply put, liberals tend to think much more than conservatives before acting, whereas conservatives tend to be much more habitual and conforming to established traditions...snip"


http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-politics10se...
"Frank J. Sulloway, a researcher at UC Berkeley's Institute of Personality and Social Research who was not connected to the study, said the results "provided an elegant demonstration that individual differences on a conservative-liberal dimension are strongly related to brain activity."

Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy