Mama, don't let yer babies grow up to be right-wingers.

No wonder it is referred to as Berzerkley

this has to be the least sceitifnc study i can imagine.

ah, quack doctors from Berkastan are the best.

Answer:

No, Charles, Berkeley wacademics do NOT have anything better to do.

This fella is typical in every way:

Paul Thomas
Professor of Political Science
Email: pt@socrates.berkeley.edu
Phone: (510) 642-4681
Office Location: 728 Barrows
Office Hours: W 2-4
Spring 2006 Course: PS118AC Three American Cultures: Jazz, Hollywood Cinema, and Border Music
Professor Thomas received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1973. He specializes in Marxism and Political Theory. His books include Karl Marx and the Anarchists (Routledge, 1980), Alien Politics: Marxist State Theory Retrieved (Routledge, 1994), Rational Choice Marxism (co-edited with Terrell Carver, Macmillan, 1995), and Culture and the State (co-authored with David Lloyd, Routledge, 1998). His numerous articles on Marx and Marxism include contributions to The Cambridge Companion to Marx and to the 1998 Socialist Register. He has also written on Rousseau, cinema and other socio-cutural themes. He is currently at work on a book called Scientific Socialism: Career of a Concept.

It occurs to me that, since this was Berkeley, maybe the kids who grew up to be conservative thought everyone was out to get them because it was true.

Dr. Mengele would be proud.

I'm 100% bottled Alpha.

Charles-Jonah Goldberg has thoroughly Fisked the "study".

I think zombie has already proven that the Bay Area liberals are the snivelers.

What a crock. A better example of skewing research to confirm a pre-existing simplistic bias you'll never find. The worst part is that taxpayers' money was spent on this mental masturbation.

Slighty OT, a little ways down the road:

Oakland:

Bomb Scare Shuts Down BART Station

If I were a young conservative in the midst of all that weirdness that passes for "normal" in Berkeley, I'd be a little insecure too.

They get paid money for writing stuff like this?

Should we start whinning about discrimination based on political party? Or demand an amendment to the Constitution to add 'political party' to race, creed and gender?

The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

And they make a mean papier mache' puppet head, too.

turned into rigid young adults

The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose

Oh, bullshit. This is too stupid to bother with fisking.

"No generalization is worth a damn, including this one." Oliver Wendell Holmes, oft quoted.

So I think, why I work 12 hours/day to get a PhD in chemical engineering?

I could have enrolled with some humanities department with a research project titled "Class and Gender Conflicts among the Italian-ethnic Migrants" and worked three days a week and laid a few babes for research purposes...

and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity

Well, if that's the metric to decide who's good and who's evil who's lberal and who's conservative, I understand many things.

In my view,think how strong a kid would have to be to grow up Republican in that Hell hole! I live a bit east of there, and I'll tell you I am constantly explaining how things REALLY work to my daughter.

maybe those conservative babies were crying because they were surrounded by all those asshole idiot Berkeley liberals?

I have to jump in here to say something important. But I have to be cagey about it:

THIS STUDY IS BOGUS. I know this because I have inside information. I know the school where the study was conducted, I know some of the people involved, I know the political agenda they had.

Absolutely NO scietific priciples were followed in conducting this "study." They set out to prove a point, and they only considered analyses that confirmed their bias.

The study has been fisked elsewhere, so I don't need to do it in detail here. I'm just here to say: it's nothing but a pile of bullshit.

Take it from someone who knows, from the inside.

Seems to fly in the face of this Pew survey:

[Link: www.livescience.com...]

"But even after adjusting for income, poor Republicans are happier than poor Democrats, and rich Republicans are happier than rich Democrats. "

okay. if that makes him feel better about his offspring, fine.
i wonder how much variance his study noted due to the recreational medications taken by the liberal parents...

My first thought upon seeing this is...so what? Conservatives get all of their crying out of their system when they're babies and small children (like when they're supposed to).

Liberals, I guess, evolve much more slowly. Or maybe in reverse.

Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country.

Does that mean I can take the revolver down from my temple now ?

If Liberals are a superior race, that explains their attitude towards Jews now, doesn't it?

Let's roll back our memories....

All of the whiny, sissy, mama's boys that I ever knew are are LLL's today!

This "study" is a clear case of projection.

Apparently the "research" itself admits that they're looking at a 0.27 correlation coefficient - that is to say, nothing.

This would be enought to to discredit this work.

I guess conservatives got all their whininess out of their systems at an early age. Moonbats seem to go through that phase later in life. I wonder how long it lasts?

zombie

There was no need for your post #19.

minstrel: My thoughts, exactly. Gotta love the value-laden adjectives, as well: whiny versus bright, etc.

I also apologize if this posts a second time; I am having internet access issues today.

Conservatives are the whiney babies when little, then the Moonbats exchange places with them as they reach adulthood. Please see the "peace marches" complete with infantile paper mache dolls and idiotic crybaby signs for supporting scientific evidence. No Phd necessary, thank you.

# 19 z

J. Goldberg confirms the bogusness of the corelation figures (among other things) quite well in Writermom's link ...

Charles

"Wacademics" is inspired, although consider wackademics.

First, the 1960 version of liberal is a long ways away from the 2006 anti-war neocommunist.

I don't recall a sharp guy like Jack Kennedy backing down from the commies. He made his fair shair of mistakes though.

Now let us do a personality test on the House and Senate and see which people seem the most reasonable, logical and so forth, and who appear to be the most insecure and sniveling.

Peter King NY, Sensebrenner,Vin Webber, McCain even

VS.

Edward Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold,
Nancy Pelosi..

Who seems the more coherent, and effective?

TO: All
RE: My...

...take on this.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

#23 Mike C.

Put.Down.The.Gun.

Liberals think that if you are conservative, you must be crazy.

Islamofascist judge in Afghanistan thinks that if you convert from Islam to Christianity, you must be crazy.

I see a similarity in the thought processes at work here.

# 26 FabioC.

An R squared of 0.26 ? In the oil biz we call that interesting, but we sure as hell don't drill on it. Gotta be 0.60, minimum.

#19 zombie

THIS STUDY IS BOGUS. I know this because I have inside information. I know the school where the study was conducted, I know some of the people involved, I know the political agenda they had.

Absolutely NO scietific priciples were followed in conducting this "study." They set out to prove a point, and they only considered analyses that confirmed their bias.

I knew it! Bwahahaha!

From #9 writermom's Jonah Goldberg link:

One reason this isn't hard to imagine is that this is a very, very old game. Ever since Theodor Adorno came out with his scandalously flawed Authoritarian Personality in 1950, liberal and leftist social scientists have been trying to diagnose conservatism as a psychological defect or sickness. Adorno and his colleagues argued that conservatism was little more than a "pre-fascist" "personality type." According to this school, sympathy for communism was an indication of openness and healthy idealism. Opposition to communism was a symptom of your more deep-seated pathologies and fascist tendencies. According to Adorno, subjects who saw Nazism and Stalinism as similar phenomenon were demonstrating their "idiocy" and "irrationality." Psychological counseling, many argued, could cure these maladies.

And the zinger:

Perhaps the more revealing psychological insight can be found in the fact that so many liberals think disagreeing with them is a form of psychosis.

The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests

Liberals, non-conformists? Buwahahahahah. That's a good one.

Liberals have to some of the most conformist people around. If you do not conform to their way of thinking you are either dumb, racist, bigoted, sexist, or a homophobe....and let's not forget any African American who dares be conservative is immediately branded and Uncle Tom....

Maybe this "researcher" can explain why so many adult liberals are self-absorbed, whiney cry-babies with anger management problems, have poor impulse control, and are prone to obscene outburts?

The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids

I'm going to go out on a limb, considering the biased tone of this article, and assume what this stands for in liberalese is 'disobediant spoiled brat'.

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints?

Similarly, when translated into english, 'those well-adjusted and intelligent kids we bullied'.

I'm not even stretching here, after seeing idiots I know in real life describe things similarly. And that's even assuming this study is useful; I highly doubt most of these terms were applied objectively.

For example, the authors never take this into account:

The "100 nursery school kids" that were the focus of the study were all attendees of an unnamed "study center" where the CHILDREN OF PROFESSORS AND OTHER BERKELEY ACADEMICS are placed; 95% of the parents of the kids in this nursery school are leftists/liberals/what-have-you.

So, the entire basis of the study disintegrates on this point alone. It could and should be viewed in the reverse way that the authors framed things:

- Whiny kids are kids that don't get along with their parents.

- Kids that don't get along with their parents aften grown up to rebel against their parents' beliefs.

- If a parent is liberal, a rebellious kid will grow up and turn conservative.

- Since the selected control group of parents were basically all liberals, it is a tautology that the "whiny kids" would tend to grow up to be conservative, since they're trying to disassociate themselves from their parents' belief systems.

Instead, the authors come to the baseless conclusion that whiny kids become uptight conservatives because there is some underlying personality disorder. But if the study had been done in a conservative area, the whiny kids would have grown up to be liberals.

The whole thing is a crock of baloney.

For instance, there was a .27 correlation between being self-reliant in nursery school and being a liberal as an adult.

In a related study there was a .99 correlation between being a Berkeley Professor and being a verifiable loony toon.

Well, as amusing as this topic is, I gotta slide out for a bit. TGoP is expecting a pork picatta for dinner, and I've got to go juggle all that that entails.

#26 FabioC.

0.27 correlation coefficient

can we say not statistically significant?
on the other hand, this would be a good drag coefficient, no?

Seems like who is doing the study influences what the outcome is.
What does he mean by "hanging loose"? To me it sounds like another non-productive, non-conforming asshole that wants me to be more supportive of other non-productive non-conforming assholes.
Conservatives go to school, get a job or start a business, buy a house, get married, raise children and don't have time to protest much of anything.
Liberals spend more time in school trying to find themselves, become school teachers and want to be considered professionals.
How many liberals ever had a fistfight? Since they did not they are into Gandi, and assume that the rest of the world shoould be that way. Sounds to me like they are out of touch with reality.

This is funny:

there was a .27 correlation between being self-reliant in nursery school and being a liberal as an adult. Another way of saying it is that self-reliance predicts statistically about 7 per cent of the variance between kids who became liberal and those who became conservative.

There is a 100% chance that it is all BALONEY because 47.3% of people make up statistics that they use in their arguments. However, 78.4% spew their verbal vomit with such conviction that 87.6% of people will believe whatever they say.

And, I'm 95% sure of this.

TO: Zombie
RE: Spill It, Bro

"I know this because I have inside information. I know the school where the study was conducted, I know some of the people involved, I know the political agenda they had." -- Zombie

All the gory details, please.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[What they are telling you may be important. What they are NOT telling you can be vital. -- cbpelto]

#27 IowaInfidel

Moonbats seem to go through that phase later in life. I wonder how long it lasts?

A lifetime, unless they get mugged.

/old joke

#19 zombie

"Bogus" doesn't get to the creepy desire to feel superior.

Sometimes it's hours spent in the library or on the Internet (but NOT PORN, you freaks, anyway). Facts, numbers, analysis, guessing, etc. Boring old work will often trump 'progressive' groupthink.

That's not a class, race, gender, or ethnicity. Academia, and consequently the MSM, is mired in mud past the axles.

For example, constantly pitting the "Shia" against the "Sunni" in Iraq isn't doing the pre-existing order any favors. Iraq, according to many Iraqis, used to consider sectarian questions to be rude. Reality goes beyond the sound bite.

Some Sunni and Shia want to fight for many different reasons, including crime and settling old scores. The MSM tends to assume it's all part of some grand "insurgency." I guess now it's all part of the "civil war."

Does this help prove their point?

A DU administrator... EarlG ADMIN

"Mr. President, were you born awesome, or did you have to practice?"

"Mr. President, some say that we should pull down our pants and let the terrorists use our bare buttocks for target practice. Do you agree?"

.
.
.
.

OT:

Algeria bans Muslims from learning about Christianity

The Algerian parliament has approved a law banning the call to embrace other religions than Islam. This law states to jail anyone "trying to call on a Muslim to embrace another religion," in remarks to the Christianizing (evangelize) campaigns taking place in the country. This decision which was approved by the national people's council ( parliament) on March 15th is an attempt to withstand the Christianizing campaign which had witnessed a notable activity recently especially in al-Qabayel area east of the country. The ratified law stated to sentence imprisonment for two to five years and a fee between 5 to 10 thousands EURO against "anyone urging or forcing or tempting, to convert a Muslim to another religion." The same penalty applies to every person, manufacturer, store or circulate publications or audo-visual or other means aiming at destabilizing attachment to Islam. The law also bans practicing any religion "except Islam" "outside buildings allocated for that, and links specialized buildings aimed at practice of religion by a prior licensing."

The Muslims are nervous because there has been quite a few conversions to Christianity in this war-torn country, where people are sick of Jihad and Berbers are tired of Arab supremacy:

"Christianity Is Life"

The Islamist campaign of violence in Algeria has turned some Muslims, especially Berbers, away from Islam and toward Christianity, reports the Algiers daily Al-Yawm in late December 2000. The deterioration of the image of Islam during the crisis has played its part in this rise of conversions to Christianity and the adoption of its principles. What is happening and what has happened in Algeria, such as the massacres and killings in the name of Islam,1 has [sic] led many, when asked what the difference, in their view, was between Islam and Christianity, to declare: "Christianity is life, Islam is death."

" There’s no reason to think political bias skewed the ratings — the investigators were not looking at political orientation back then."

Surely...of course they weren't...and of course they expect us to take their word for it.

Ive been an investigator on several research projects.Published while i was with Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons. This paper wouldnt even be allowed to be used as toilet paper. Pure Quakery.

#44 Mike C.

Pork piccata? I've had chicken piccata, but not pork piccata. Does it call for lemon juice?

Fun with statistics. Or, how to influence your peers without having to actually actually prove anything.

Ingredients:
1) take limited sample size from highly liberal area
2) add a dose of biases that cannot be simply screened out
3) throw in a jigger of conservative bashing
4) run statistical programs and voila!

Oh, and while we're at it, how come there isn't any study that delves into the notion that conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality or the related comment that people become more conservative as they age?

"And the girls are prettier too, and the boys are taller and stronger. Liberals also have perfect pitch, and can usually hum in 6 different languages."

Oh, and Malkin has a pretty good takedown of this as well.

#48 Chuck Pelto
TO: Zombie
RE: Spill It, Bro
...
All the gory details, please.

Unfortunately, I can't. Security reasons. Sad. I'd be able to blow this study out of the water, but in so doing I'd give a clue as to my identity.

Frustrating, but that's the price of paranoia.

#52 Fjordman
That tells you all you really need to know about Islam, All other beliefs are a threat to Islam 'cause Islam is pure unadulterated horseshit.

"Hanging loose"?!? FFS, who says that anymore?

#52 Fjordman

That makes me a little hopeful for the future (the conversions, that is).

Canadastani Prof: Berkeley Profs know that papers denigrating conservatives will get published, bringing fame and free drinks. Convicted criminals more likely to vote for Liberals. Liberals more likely to prove intellectual superiority by saying things that sound like Al Jazeera.

That's an amazing stretch of a conclusion,all the whiney crybaby,tattletails I went to school with turned into teste-less liberals.

All the self confident,all the athletes and all the rough,tough guys and gals became republicans.

I'll admit that late 50s/early 60s Delaware county,Ohio was not representative of the entire country,it was about 80% Republican.

Kinda looks like my "research" completely cancels out Jack Block's.

#60 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

Aging hippies in Berkeley.

/far out, man

The ONLY truth I accept: if you're not a liberal in your teens/20s you have no heart; if you're not a conservative from then on you have NO BRAIN

Ven der liberals zay "Ve iss der master race"

Ve Heil

Heil

Heil

Right in der liberals face.

Apologies to Spike Jones

I'm still chuckling over Charles's ubermenschen crack. I can just imagine walking through Berkeley amid all those aging hippies and thinking "I'd better be careful, or one of these guys is going to kick my ass."

Laast night on a local public acccess channel showed a lecture from Oregon State University on the "science" of thinking globally!
It was the worst kind of pseudo science I've seen in a long time.
At on point they hooked up an "enlightened" student to an EKG and asked him to think globally and sure enough the EKG readout showed his "narrow mindedness" (the red line) went down and his "well being" (green line) went up. This is at a state university!
Unfourtunately I'm not hooked up to record stuff off tv so I have no tape of it.

i'm surprised their study didn't find that we're a bunch of repressed homosexuals too.

what a bunch of wackos.

Don’t Berkeley wacademics have better things to do than try to prove that “liberals” are genetically superior to “conservatives?”

Well, they would spend their time researching the Jewish stranglehold on America, but Harvard and the University of Chicago have that covered.

Berkeley "quackademics"..

Their biggest battles are to the front of the half-caf-latte chai line at Starbucks.

Man, I love Oreos. And I'm a conservative. Therefore, all conservatives love Oreos & all people who love Oreos are conservatives. Right? I mean, that what this assclown's "reasoning" boils down to, isn't it?

#16 FabioC. 3/22/2006 01:22PM PST
So I think, why I work 12 hours/day to get a PhD in chemical engineering?

I could have enrolled with some humanities department with a research project titled "Class and Gender Conflicts among the Italian-ethnic Migrants" and worked three days a week and laid a few babes for research purposes...

and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity

I wonder why we don't see that the whiney babies turned into.....

"rudderless young adults who violated every social norm of their culture by placing all forms of deviant sexual behavior on a pedestal and were uncomfortable with rules because of the guilt they felt when violating them"?

#70 SoCalJustice

Hmmm...then we must recalibrate the ZOG Mind Control Rays!

Back to work!

confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose

How does one measure ones "hanging loose" ratio?

How much Pot does one smoke in an average week?

Number of jobs in a one year period?

Number of protests you participated in weekly?

For women, how many abortions in a one year period?

For men, how many times you've emasculated yourself for countless generations of male hegemony a week?

What a crock of shit.

Hm. Wasn't there a study published a couple years ago "proving" that conservatives are insane and so on?

I conducted a study that says Berkeley professors tend to have their heads up there asses.

writermom

What you're describing is their interior jihad. In the Starbucks line, the most they can muster are a few arched eyebrows and pained expressions of sympathy between the slighted.

Then they go take it all out on W.

Oh really?

Last time I checked, it wasn't conservatives looking for any possible way to label themselves as "victims" of society, Bush, the Man, right-wing Christians, or anything else.

And it sure takes a lot of determination, self-reliance and resiliance to convince yourself that government is the solution to all your problems.

Hurricane destroyed your home? The "confident, resilient, self-reliant," response is to complain that the Government is kicking you out of the hotel room you occupied for 4 months without looking for a job. Carting away the debris, picking up a damn hammer and a damn piece of lumber and rebuilding your home is evidently the "whiny, insecure" thing to do.

This "academic study" reminds me of nothing so much as Bart Simpson banging pots and pans and yelling, "I am so great! I am so great! Everybody loves me, I am so great!" Liberals will look for anything that justifies their self-superiority to conservatives, no matter how flimsy it is.

"And the study also shows conservative children have no rhythm, but liberal children can dance way better because of the hanging -loose factor."

Now that's what I call science.

Re: my #73....

Should have been....

I wonder why we don't see that the confident babies turned into.....

The study is a mess. You can't judge it's results without taking into account the cultural and political influences of the area that it was conducted in. You do this same exact study in Wichita and I'll bet that the results do not track at all. Would Block have published his results as he did if he had found that they weren't flattering to liberals?

#69 dcrocka:

Who is this "we" that you speak of, dcrocka? You're not one of us.

uncomfortable with ambiguity

LOL

That's ironic. I'm usually pro-ambiguity. But it varies from issue to issue.

Babies who don't get breast fed become whiny liberals who live in a negatively spun theoretical world and can't deal with reality.

#78 godfrey

Then they go take it all out on W. home and get beat down by their wives.

also reads well this way, yeah?

What's the opposite of "hanging loose"?

Sphincter-lock?

'Introspective' is good. The unexamined life is a tragedy and a waste!

Here's a subject for a study there Berkeley boy. I think this line is from NRO.

Prove or disprove this:

Tax contributers tend to be Republican

Tax consumers tend to be Democrats

"The study also concluded that conservatives use less toilet-paper, because they are anal-retentive, but use more hairspray, because of their need for control."

Liberals "hang loose" while conservatives "hang heavy".

pointed

Then they go take it all out on W. home and get beat down by their wives kids

Works this way, too.

Have I mentioned my study? It proves conclusively that swallowing human saliva in small amounts over a long period of time results in death in 100% of cases studied!

What am I?

In the 1960s I was a hippie and involved with SDS and the New Mobilization to End the War. I knew 2 of the Chicago 7 and met two others. I met members of the Weather Underground.

After 9-11, upset at what in our nation was under assault, I began to read widely in politics I never had considered before, from the Founding Fathers to Hayek, and much in between. Turns out this is closer to what I was believing in the 60s.

Where do I fit in the authors' rigid typology?

Mommas don't let your babies grow up to be gay cowboys!

#76 Patrick Chester

Hm. Wasn't there a study published a couple years ago "proving" that conservatives are insane and so on?

Yes. See writermom's link at #9.

Where I live, it's the exact opposite. The spoiled, whiny, rich kids with horible personalties are ALL liberal, anti -war know nothings. This kind of "research" proves nothing, except that liberals will search for any reason to make themselves feel superior to conservatives, since reality isnt helping them further their cause.

Good Grief! The guy's a flippin' Commie!

>>Paul Thomas
Professor of Political Science
Email: pt@socrates.berkeley.edu
Phone: (510) 642-4681
Office Location: 728 Barrows
Office Hours: W 2-4
Spring 2006 Course: PS118AC Three American Cultures: Jazz, Hollywood Cinema, and Border Music
Professor Thomas received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1973. He specializes in Marxism and Political Theory. His books include Karl Marx and the Anarchists (Routledge, 1980), Alien Politics: Marxist State Theory Retrieved (Routledge, 1994), Rational Choice Marxism (co-edited with Terrell Carver, Macmillan, 1995), and Culture and the State (co-authored with David Lloyd, Routledge, 1998). His numerous articles on Marx and Marxism include contributions to The Cambridge Companion to Marx and to the 1998 Socialist Register. He has also written on Rousseau, cinema and other socio-cutural themes. He is currently at work on a book called Scientific Socialism: Career of a Concept.

As Jonah Goldberg pointed out, it is the same thinking that liberals use to label those who may disagree with them on the political and social implications of gay marriage as "Homophobic," as if it's some form of mental illness.

Has this "professor" been booked on Air America to discuss his "research"? Sounds like a natural for the Jeannine Garafolo Power Hour.

#66 TotallySirius

I Zee U no Pennsylwania Dutch to naw Vunst. Ve should take zem behind ze Vood shet und give zem vhat ze bin askin fur. Zees yung kits zinc ze no everyzinc, but ze no Nuzinc.

Montaigne's Cat 93

Hey I think I sold you a oz of dirt weed back in 69, hope you're still not mad.

#93 montaigne's cat

Further evidence that today's conservatives are the true "liberals". And in this context, I mean liberals in a good way. (Liberty, equality, etc.)

#91 godfrey
lol...indeed it does!
now i'll be laughing about that the rest of the day, as people stare..
-dad, i need the keys to the volvo
-no son, it's time for you to study for your maxism final
-thwap, shut up bit*h, give me the keys.

#93 M's Cat

"What am I?"

Um, I'd say a grown-up. I know it's harsh, but nevertheless. :)

He is currently at work on a book called Scientific Socialism: Career of a Concept.

***Spoiler Alert***

The actual career was short-lived.

#78 godfrey

LOL! The itjihad...

I'm such an expert!

Another one of the many egregious ways in which this study is fundamentally flawed:

What counted as "liberal" in the early '60s was completely different from what counts as "liberal" today. In order to have "become a conservative" from then to now, all you needed to have done is remain the same.

George Bush is a veritable pansy-ass progressive compared to JFK.

Just look at the Cuban Missile Crisis. Now THAT was a hard-as-nails bit of international relations. But it counted as liberal back then.

Imagine how JFK would deal with Iran in 2006. It would make the Cuban Missile Crisis look like a picnic in the park.

But Bush, who is more passive and forgiving than JFK, is considered a "conservative."

They've moved the goalposts so far to the left, the definition means nothing any more, especially when you are comparing to the early '60s.

Maybe the whiney kids where whiney because they have higher standards and thus see more to whine about. Maybe the mellow kids were mellow because their moms were potheads.

I just had a liberal colleague tell me today that Barak Obama is our future president. I said, you liberals just keep trotting out these unelectable candidates, please.

Let's round out the scene:

- thwap, shut up bit*h, give me the keys.
- Speaking truth to power... I can't argue with you there. Here you go, but be home by eleven!
- F*** you!
- Honey!?

#80 mamma winger

conservative children have no rhythm

OMG! Killing myself laughing! Truly one of the funniest comments on this thread.

/makes mental note to check own children's rythym tonight, gotta get the right tunes happening

On the other hand I believe it was Churchill that said:

"If you are not a liberal at 21 you have no heart. And if you are not a conservative at 41 you have no brains".

Of course there are exceptions in the nursery school and in the old folks home.

Only in Berkeley would they do such a study. Start with a premise and shoehorn the study to fit the premise. It's worthless.

#89 mama

LOL

Does that mean that the plastic haired talking heads of the antique media are really closet Republicans?

Bwahahahahaha

#82 i most certainly am. didn't you