goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Dirty Sanchez on October 27, 2010, 08:38:26 PM
-
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/weird/Scientists-May-Have-IDd-Liberal-Gene-105917218.html
The science is in. The debate is over. Liberals are proven to be retards.
-
"It is the crucial interaction of two factors -- the genetic predisposition and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence -- that is associated with being more liberal,” according to the study.
Annnnnnd Sanchez is 0 for 2.
-
"It is the crucial interaction of two factors -- the genetic predisposition and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence -- that is associated with being more liberal,” according to the study.
Annnnnnd Sanchez is 0 for 2.
You take yourself far too seriously.
-
It sounds like medication might help if it is a problem with dopamine production or receptors. There may be hope and change for liberals after all.
-
Abnormal dopamine receptor signaling and dopaminergic nerve function is implicated in several neuropsychiatric disorders.[1] Thus, dopamine receptors are common neurologic drug targets; antipsychotics are often dopamine receptor antagonists while psychostimulants are typically indirect agonists of dopamine receptors.
hmmm....I wonder who counted up their friends for them? :crazyperson: I'm guessing "socially active" means f*ck anything and everything that will consent
I'd personally like to see a study on why liberals are less attractive than normal people.
-
I'd personally like to see a study on why liberals are less attractive than normal people.
Never been to California, huh?
-
I'd personally like to see a study on why liberals are less attractive than normal people.
Never been to California, huh?
I used to live in L.A. ("hated it" gay guy vioce), place is a cess pool
-
Why does it make you conservative if you don't have very many friends growing up? Would really like to read more about this.
-
are you trying to tell me that my ideology is the result of being a more evolved, better social being?
-
Why does it make you conservative if you don't have very many friends growing up? Would really like to read more about this.
Spent more time studying. Got better grades. Learned more about American History.
-
I thought most conservatives were opposed to science?
-
I thought most conservatives were opposed to science?
Bad things happen when you think.
-
I thought most conservatives were opposed to science?
Bad things happen when you think.
Oh ok... so all of those people who want intelligent design to be taught alongside evolution are just joking then?
:confused:
-
I thought most conservatives were opposed to science?
No, see, I'm coming over from the troglodyte side to relying on science for everything, because current science is the end all be all of knowledge. Liberals are retards. The science is in. The debate is over.
-
I thought most conservatives were opposed to science?
No, see, I'm coming over from the troglodyte side to relying on science for everything, because current science is the end all be all of knowledge. Liberals are retards. The science is in. The debate is over.
The only thing I took from reading that little write-up was that liberals are more likely to have more friends during adolescence. Do you even know what liberalism entails, by the way? Our founding fathers would be considered "liberal" in this day and age by dipsh*ts like yourself.
-
I thought most conservatives were opposed to science?
No, see, I'm coming over from the troglodyte side to relying on science for everything, because current science is the end all be all of knowledge. Liberals are retards. The science is in. The debate is over.
The only thing I took from reading that little write-up was that liberals are more likely to have more friends during adolescence. Do you even know what liberalism entails, by the way? Our founding fathers would be considered "liberal" in this day and age by dipsh*ts like yourself.
Epic Fail
-
I thought most conservatives were opposed to science?
No, see, I'm coming over from the troglodyte side to relying on science for everything, because current science is the end all be all of knowledge. Liberals are retards. The science is in. The debate is over.
The only thing I took from reading that little write-up was that liberals are more likely to have more friends during adolescence. Do you even know what liberalism entails, by the way? Our founding fathers would be considered "liberal" in this day and age by dipsh*ts like yourself.
And if you think liberal means the same thing after about 1900, then you may want to go back and retake American history, starting in the first grade, and this time don't use your public school textbook. I'm sure Alexander Hamilton would be all over wanting another huge stimulus.
Stick to football, you know it better. :lol:
-
GB came out on radio the other day defending intelligent design. He's officially an absolute fraud
-
Which is the same reason I couldn't vote for Huckabee. Like the guy and all, but I couldn't vote for a guy that believes the earth is 7k years old
-
I thought most conservatives were opposed to science?
No, see, I'm coming over from the troglodyte side to relying on science for everything, because current science is the end all be all of knowledge. Liberals are retards. The science is in. The debate is over.
The only thing I took from reading that little write-up was that liberals are more likely to have more friends during adolescence. Do you even know what liberalism entails, by the way? Our founding fathers would be considered "liberal" in this day and age by dipsh*ts like yourself.
And if you think liberal means the same thing after about 1900, then you may want to go back and retake American history, starting in the first grade, and this time don't use your public school textbook. I'm sure Alexander Hamilton would be all over wanting another huge stimulus.
Stick to football, you know it better. :lol:
I take it you don't know the true definition of liberalism? Want to give it another shot?
-
I thought most conservatives were opposed to science?
No, see, I'm coming over from the troglodyte side to relying on science for everything, because current science is the end all be all of knowledge. Liberals are retards. The science is in. The debate is over.
The only thing I took from reading that little write-up was that liberals are more likely to have more friends during adolescence. Do you even know what liberalism entails, by the way? Our founding fathers would be considered "liberal" in this day and age by dipsh*ts like yourself.
And if you think liberal means the same thing after about 1900, then you may want to go back and retake American history, starting in the first grade, and this time don't use your public school textbook. I'm sure Alexander Hamilton would be all over wanting another huge stimulus.
Stick to football, you know it better. :lol:
I take it you don't know the true definition of liberalism? Want to give it another shot?
Yeah, yeah...you're trying to argue that you are the political descendants of the Founders.
:bong: :bigtoke:
-
I thought most conservatives were opposed to science?
No, see, I'm coming over from the troglodyte side to relying on science for everything, because current science is the end all be all of knowledge. Liberals are retards. The science is in. The debate is over.
The only thing I took from reading that little write-up was that liberals are more likely to have more friends during adolescence. Do you even know what liberalism entails, by the way? Our founding fathers would be considered "liberal" in this day and age by dipsh*ts like yourself.
And if you think liberal means the same thing after about 1900, then you may want to go back and retake American history, starting in the first grade, and this time don't use your public school textbook. I'm sure Alexander Hamilton would be all over wanting another huge stimulus.
Stick to football, you know it better. :lol:
I take it you don't know the true definition of liberalism? Want to give it another shot?
This really is one of your worst arguments. The founding fathers are more akin to the Tea Party (people who want radical change of limited government and liberty, but labeled conservative) than liberals (people with a narrow and highly hypocritical agenda who advocate free thought and "civil liberty" as long as it fits their definition of what's okay to think and do, if it doesn't you will be censured and ridiculed as if King George himself unilaterally declared your actions illegal).
-
The United States was founded on liberalism. Look up Thomas Jefferson and John Locke sometime.
-
The United States was founded on liberalism. Look up Thomas Jefferson and John Locke sometime.
You know nothing. Citing those two as example of liberals makes your argument even worse. Jeffersonian Democrats are present day tea party people. Jefferson pretty much plagiarized Locke so there's that.
You're misunderstanding what it means to be a liberal today vs. 200-300 years ago
-
The United States was founded on liberalism. Look up Thomas Jefferson and John Locke sometime.
You know nothing. Citing those two as example of liberals makes your argument even worse. Jeffersonian Democrats are present day tea party people. Jefferson pretty much plagiarized Locke so there's that.
You're misunderstanding what it means to be a liberal today vs. 200-300 years ago
Not at all. The right wing has demonized the term "liberal" to the point that people forget what it truly means. Modern day liberals are completely in support of expanding individual freedom and equal rights, as well as maintaining a separation of church and state. As far as Jefferson goes, he modified Locke's theory of "life, liberty, and property" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
-
The United States was founded on liberalism. Look up Thomas Jefferson and John Locke sometime.
You know nothing. Citing those two as example of liberals makes your argument even worse. Jeffersonian Democrats are present day tea party people. Jefferson pretty much plagiarized Locke so there's that.
You're misunderstanding what it means to be a liberal today vs. 200-300 years ago
Not at all. The right wing has demonized the term "liberal" to the point that people forget what it truly means. Modern day liberals are completely in support of expanding individual freedom and equal rights, as well as maintaining a separation of church and state. As far as Jefferson goes, he modified Locke's theory of "life, liberty, and property" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
No they aren't, they are in favor of creating an enormous government to mandate their own ideas (which are the super-minority) and force everyone else to adhere to them whether those other people agree/believe in them or not. It's actually quite the opposite, very authoritarian. Its more like the New Church of Liberalism than any separation of church and state.
-
Sugar Dick you are at least an "A" grade in a world history class away from being correct here.
-
Anyone else think its weird BMW chose a Wealthy, White Male, who was a farmer (lib translation: redneck or hick) and slave owner (allegedly raped some of them), diametrically opposed to a central bank, and who wanted limited, if any at all, federal government, as the historical figure most representative of the modern day liberal movement?
I bet TJ even owned a few guns :ohno:
-
I'm sure Madison just happened to forget the "Congress shall require the purchase of health insurance from private companies" clause.
-
Anyone else think its weird BMW chose a Wealthy, White Male, who was a farmer (lib translation: redneck or hick) and slave owner (allegedly raped some of them), diametrically opposed to a central bank, and who wanted limited, if any at all, federal government, as the historical figure most representative of the modern day liberal movement?
I bet TJ even owned a few guns :ohno:
i think its weird that you don't get that the dudes who founded the country had liberal ideals similar to today's libs.
-
Ben Franklin would be despised by the Tea Party today. His hypocrisy would fit in well with modern-day politics though.
-
I'm sure Madison just happened to forget the "Congress shall require the purchase of health insurance from private companies" clause.
Amen, brother. :lol: Same way Washington forgot to declare that we were going to "go to the moon in this decade." Times change, but the fact that conservatives didn't have friends in high school does not.
-
I'm sure Madison just happened to forget the "Congress shall require the purchase of health insurance from private companies" clause.
Amen, brother. :lol: Same way Washington forgot to declare that we were going to "go to the moon in this decade." Times change, but the fact that conservatives didn't have friends in high school does not.
If we just change what definitions are because "times change," then what good is there to even having a Constitution? I mean, why don't we just make it up as we go? Seems to make as much sense. Let's tear it up right now.
-
Anyone else think its weird BMW chose a Wealthy, White Male, who was a farmer (lib translation: redneck or hick) and slave owner (allegedly raped some of them), diametrically opposed to a central bank, and who wanted limited, if any at all, federal government, as the historical figure most representative of the modern day liberal movement?
I bet TJ even owned a few guns :ohno:
i think its weird that you don't get that the dudes who founded the country had liberal ideals similar to today's libs.
name one
-
I'm sure Madison just happened to forget the "Congress shall require the purchase of health insurance from private companies" clause.
Amen, brother. :lol: Same way Washington forgot to declare that we were going to "go to the moon in this decade." Times change, but the fact that conservatives didn't have friends in high school does not.
If we just change what definitions are because "times change," then what good is there to even having a Constitution? I mean, why don't we just make it up as we go? Seems to make as much sense. Let's tear it up right now.
This is why congress has the ability to make amendments to the constitution. They do have the ability to "make it up as we go."
-
The vast majority of the modern day liberal democrats fit the absolute definition of statists or in their case statism supporters.
They'll also argue about how they're all for personal freedoms while happily supporting an administration that is hell bent in placing an already over regulated nation on regulatory steroids.
-
I'm sure Madison just happened to forget the "Congress shall require the purchase of health insurance from private companies" clause.
Amen, brother. :lol: Same way Washington forgot to declare that we were going to "go to the moon in this decade." Times change, but the fact that conservatives didn't have friends in high school does not.
If we just change what definitions are because "times change," then what good is there to even having a Constitution? I mean, why don't we just make it up as we go? Seems to make as much sense. Let's tear it up right now.
This is why congress has the ability to make amendments to the constitution. They do have the ability to "make it up as we go."
Ging isn't a very bright guy/gal :smh:
-
I'm sure Madison just happened to forget the "Congress shall require the purchase of health insurance from private companies" clause.
Amen, brother. :lol: Same way Washington forgot to declare that we were going to "go to the moon in this decade." Times change, but the fact that conservatives didn't have friends in high school does not.
If we just change what definitions are because "times change," then what good is there to even having a Constitution? I mean, why don't we just make it up as we go? Seems to make as much sense. Let's tear it up right now.
This is why congress has the ability to make amendments to the constitution. They do have the ability to "make it up as we go."
A government takeover of healthcare passed by specious legal maneuvering is in no way congruous to an amendment to the Constitution. Laws =/ amendments. You need to go take that remedial civics class next door to the one beems it taking in American history.
-
I'm sure Madison just happened to forget the "Congress shall require the purchase of health insurance from private companies" clause.
Amen, brother. :lol: Same way Washington forgot to declare that we were going to "go to the moon in this decade." Times change, but the fact that conservatives didn't have friends in high school does not.
If we just change what definitions are because "times change," then what good is there to even having a Constitution? I mean, why don't we just make it up as we go? Seems to make as much sense. Let's tear it up right now.
This is why congress has the ability to make amendments to the constitution. They do have the ability to "make it up as we go."
A government takeover of healthcare passed by specious legal maneuvering is in no way congruous to an amendment to the Constitution. Laws =/ amendments. You need to go take that remedial civics class next door to the one beems it taking in American history.
I think that's what he was trying to say. I believe you two are in agreement
Ging =/ Nuts (pfft, when I read Ging for some reason I think of vagina :lol:)
-
I'm sure Madison just happened to forget the "Congress shall require the purchase of health insurance from private companies" clause.
Amen, brother. :lol: Same way Washington forgot to declare that we were going to "go to the moon in this decade." Times change, but the fact that conservatives didn't have friends in high school does not.
If we just change what definitions are because "times change," then what good is there to even having a Constitution? I mean, why don't we just make it up as we go? Seems to make as much sense. Let's tear it up right now.
I was saying that Madison knew and cared as much about 21st century health insurance as Washington did about going to the moon.
-
The space program is at least in a defense interest (you're kidding yourself if you think it wasn't the primary motivator), an actual Constitutional mandate. Nothing in the Constitution provides that the government shall require anyone to enter into a legal contract.
-
The space program is at least in a defense interest (you're kidding yourself if you think it wasn't the primary motivator), an actual Constitutional mandate. Nothing in the Constitution provides that the government shall require anyone to enter into a legal contract.
Agreed. Praise be to Jesus that the constitution makes creating bombs and crap easy. Amen.
-
The space program is at least in a defense interest (you're kidding yourself if you think it wasn't the primary motivator), an actual Constitutional mandate. Nothing in the Constitution provides that the government shall require anyone to enter into a legal contract.
Agreed. Praise be to Jesus that the constitution makes creating bombs and cac easy. Amen.
What a f@g