I think brains like yours are the greatest danger
Posted By: of all. on 2009-06-03
In Reply to: Religious Fanatics are FAR more dangerous - Than Foreign Terrorists
Muddle-headed citizens like you are precisely what the terrorists count on most.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
You are ridiculous. He was one of the greatest
nm
Bush greatest hits... or is it misses?
A mere drop in a very large, filthy bucket but off the top of my head and in no particular order:
1. Lying about and starting an illegal, unecessary war.
2. Dressing up in a flight suit with a Mission Accomplished banner behind him.
3. Obscene tax cuts for billionaires (his base) while cutting programs for the poor and shifting tax burdens to the middle class.
4. Nearly doubling the number of middle class people without health insurance.
5. Gutting clean air and other environmental standards.
6. Holding hands with Saudi Prince Abdullah...Now tell me again, what country were the 9/11 hijackers from and who is the one *addicted to oil*?
7. No child left behind.
8. Restoring *integrity* to the White House.
9. Dividing the country while being the decider.
10. Using religion to get votes and pretending to be a Christian and overall *I am the chosen one* messianic delusion.
11. Pretending to speak Spanish....he doesn't even speak English.
12. Doing nothing about Darfur until yesterday.
13. Ignoring Central America.
14. Not holding regular press conferences.
15. Harriet Myers and pandering to the religious right.
16. Being an arrogant, smirking, strutting, inarticulate, illiterate embarassment.
17. Exposing covert CIA operatives.
18. Telling the country and Cindy Sheehan that he *needs to get on with his life* while soldiers are dying.
19. The *you're either with us or against us* mentality and telling our allies to...um, well, you know, what Cheney said on the House floor.
20. Shamefully incompetent Katrina response and breaking FEMA with heck of a job Brownie.
21. Creating ballooning deficits that weren't there when he came in.
22. Being too busy to attend African-American events except for Coretta's funeral.
23. Lying, lying, lying.
Fear is the greatest means of control.
They tried to scare people into believing that registering automobiles would lead to confiscation. Know anybody that had the government take away their car?
We will add that to the Right Wing's Greatest Hits by Ronco.
Along with other catchy tunes such as:
He pals around with terrorists.
He is a Socialist.
He is a Communist.
He will take our money and our guns.
He will spread the wealth.
He is a Muslim.
He is not a US citizen.
He was born in Kenya.
He is an elitist.
He is friends with Bill Ayers.
He went to Pakistan in 1981.
Words of the wise from one of the greatest men in history
I wish more people were interested in all that our founding fathers did for us.
They were in danger before Cindy even thought
about going to Crawford. Can this be evidenced by increasing US losses? If there are more losses, it probably has more to do with the constitution that the sunni's are rejecting, not Cindy Shehan. The marine who wrote the letter to Ohio that's posted on the con board is entitled to his opinion, but I think the responsibility is misplaced. I pray for his safe return home.
Does anyone else see a clear and present danger?
L
Then you haven't been paying attention to Able Danger. sm
It's a huge story, being ignored by the MSM right now, but investigation is underway.
So now it is Cindy, not Bush who put the troops in danger.
Not the terrorist, it's Cindy. I get it now, thanks for sharing that with us.
You tred on danger uniformed ground. NI
123
No danger there. No lying crooks are running.
nm
No danger of no shows. Media coverage alone
imagine that. W being upstaged by an elite, Islamic, racist, terrorist, socialist, commie pinko Nazi.
Palin does have brains.
She could not have gotten where she is today without having brains especially since she started in the PTA and moved up. She didn't have mommy or daddy in politics bringing her name up every chance they got. She is a very admirable women, IMHO. I would be very proud to have her as VP. A woman who can raise 5 kids and be a governor......that is just remarkable. I admire the way she still had her youngest son even though the doctors told her he would have Down syndrome. She isn't afraid to stand up for what she believes. She is more of a real person to me. She hunts, she is a hockey mom. She is no b!mbo. And lastly....she is a beautiful woman and I'm not just speaking about her outer appearance. She cares. She is for the people. I think McCain made a great choice when he picked her.
Go McCain and Palin 2008!!! 
Finally!! Someone with brains!!
Sambo's ranting and raving backed up with her "so called" facts are actually quite laughable. And then......to top it off - we have the whiners who proclaim "she backs it up with facts." HA!! Sofa King Wee Todd id!!!! Baaa, baaaa - the sheep must follow. Amazing, absolutely amazing. Watching that mass - pizza the hut Sambo - go gurgling out into space in a blaze of fire just made my day. To you, my most sincerest respect.
You mean too many with brains giving in.
There is a big difference between intelligence and lack of cahones.
Those of us with actual brains, & can think for ourselves,
to make our decisions for us, tell us what to think or how to be, tell us whom to judge, or how to vote. From back in the days of the Crusades, religion has always been about a few men controlling other people. And they learned a long time ago that those who are most easily controlled are those with feeble minds and no free will.
Brains is one thing.
Kissing butt and praising yourself is a whole different story.
One question, does Able Danger prove that Bill Clinton is responsible for 9-11?
I don't think so. That is what the poster on this thread is suggesting.
How Partison Brains Work...sm
Hmmmm...I must admit, this is very interesting.
------------------------------------------
How the Brain Helps Partisans Admit No Gray
By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 31, 2006; Page A02
President Bush came to Washington promising to be a uniter, but public opinion polls show that apart from a burst of camaraderie after Sept. 11, 2001, America is more bitterly divided and partisan than ever.
We'll leave the pundits to pontificate on the politics, and instead explore a more interesting phenomenon: People who see the world in black and white rarely seem to take in information that could undermine their positions.
Psychological experiments in recent years have shown that people are not evenhanded when they process information, even though they believe they are. (When people are asked whether they are biased, they say no. But when asked whether they think other people are biased, they say yes.) Partisans who watch presidential debates invariably think their guy won. When talking heads provide opinions after the debate, partisans regularly feel the people with whom they agree are making careful, reasoned arguments, whereas the people they disagree with sound like they have cloth for brains.
Unvaryingly, partisans also believe that partisans on the other side are far more ideologically extreme than they actually are, said Stanford University psychologist Mark Lepper, who has studied how people watch presidential debates.
Although it is satisfying to think that your side is right and the other side consists of morons, the systematic errors that can be documented in partisan perception suggest something deeper than deliberate tunnel vision. (Last Monday, this space was devoted to the curious phenomenon of the hostile media effect, in which pro-Israeli and pro-Arab partisans shown the same TV clips both came to the conclusion that the news accounts were heavily biased in favor of the other side.) What explains these distortions in perception?
In an experiment that polls may want to note closely, researchers recently plopped 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats into scanners that measure changes in brain-blood oxygenation. Such changes are thought to be linked to increases or decreases in particular areas of brain activity.
Each of the partisans was repeatedly shown images of President Bush and 2004 Democratic challenger John F. Kerry.
When Republicans saw Kerry (or Democrats saw Bush) there was increased activation in brain areas called the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is near the temple, and the anterior cingulate cortex, which is in the middle of the head. Both these regions are involved in regulating emotions. (If you are eating an ice cream cone on a hot day and your ice cream falls on the sidewalk and you get upset, these areas of your brain remind you that it is only an ice cream, that not eating the ice cream can help keep those pounds off, and similar rationalizations.) More straightforwardly, Republicans and Democrats also showed activation in two other brain areas involved in negative emotion, the insula and the temporal pole. It makes perfect sense, of course, why partisans would feel negatively about the candidate they dislike, but what explains the activation of the cognitive regulatory system?
Turns out, rather than turning down their negative feelings as they might do with the fallen ice cream, partisans turn up their negative emotional response when they see a photo of the opposing candidate, said Jonas Kaplan, a psychologist at the University of California at Los Angeles.
In other words, without knowing it themselves, the partisans were jealously guarding against anything that might lower their antagonism. Turning up negative feelings, of course, is a good way to make sure your antagonism stays strong and healthy.
My feeling is, in the political process, people come to decisions early on and then spend the rest of the time making themselves feel good about their decision, Kaplan said.
Although it seems paradoxical that people would want to make themselves feel poorly, Kaplan said partisans have a strong interest in feeling poorly about the candidate they are not going to vote for as that cements their belief that they are doing the right thing.
Democrats looking at Bush may have some positive feelings about the fact he is their leader, so the process of convincing yourself this is someone you don't like when you intend not to vote for him makes sense, he said.
The result reflects a larger phenomenon in which people routinely discount information that threatens their preexisting beliefs, said Emory University psychologist Drew Westen, who has conducted brain-scan experiments that show partisans swiftly spot hypocrisy and inconsistencies -- but only in the opposing candidate.
When presented with evidence showing the flaws of their candidate, the same brain regions that Kaplan studied lighted up -- only this time partisans were unconsciously turning down feelings of aversion and unpleasantness.
The brain was trying to find a solution that would get rid of the distress and absolve the candidate of doing something slimy, Westen said. They would twirl the emotional kaleidoscope until it gave them a picture that was comfortable.
Because he's a leader, not a follower, he has brains,
he is his own man. That is why, no matter how loud you scream and how indignantly you protest, people are simply tuning out on this negative sludge. We want to see McCain develop some backbone, drop the school yead bully routine and talk about some issues. It's not too much to ask, just 3 weeks shy of the election.
Did you ever hear her speak??? She has NO BRAINS and
nm
Me thinks some people's brains do not reside in their heads. nm
.
For those whose brains can only handle sound byte mentality
For the rest of us, we need a little substance and certainly cannot take wild accusations with no verifiable or credible source in sight and pointless juvenile name calling too seriously on any level whatsoever.
Typical, make a nasty comment and run. You have no credibility with anyone with any brains. nm
.
|
