Discovery of GOP gene
Loki
discovery that affiliation with the Republican Party is genetically
determined. This caused uproar among
traditionalists who believe it is a chosen lifestyle. Reports of the
gene coding for political conservatism, discovered after a decades
long study of quintuplets in Orange County, CA, has sent shock waves
through the medical, political, and golfing communities.
Psychologists and psychoanalysts have long believed that Republicans'
unnatural disregard for the poor and frequently unconstitutional
tendencies resulted from dysfunctional family dynamics-a remarkably
high percentage of Republicans do
have authoritarian domineering fathers and emotionally distant mothers
who didn't teach them how to be kind and gentle.
Biologists have long suspected that conservatism is inherited. "After
all," said one author of the NURTURE article, "It's quite common for a
Republican to have a brother or sister who is a Republican." The
finding has been greeted with relief by Parents and Friends of
Republicans (PFREP), who sometimes blame themselves for the political
views of otherwise lovable children, family, and un-indicted
co-conspirators.
One mother, a longtime Democrat, wept and clapped her hands in ecstasy
on hearing of the findings."I just knew it was genetic," she said,
seated with her two sons, both avowed Republicans. "My boys would
never freely choose that lifestyle!" When asked what the Republican
lifestyle was, she said, "You can just tell watching their conventions
in Houston and San Diego On TV: the flaming xenophobia, flamboyant
demagogy, disdain for anyone not rich, you know." Both sons had
suspected their Republicanism from an early age but did not confirm it
until they were in college, when they became convinced it wasn't just
a phase they were going through.
The NURTURE article offered no response to the suggestion that the
high incidence of Republicanism among siblings could result from
sharing not only genes but also psychological and emotional attitude
as products of the same parents and family dynamics.
A remaining mystery is why many Democrats admit to having voted
Republican at least once-or often dream or fantasize about doing so.
Polls show that three out of five adult Democrats have had a
Republican experience, although most outgrow teenage experimentation
with Republicanism.
Some Republicans hail the findings as a step toward eliminating
conservophobia. They argue that since Republicans didn't "choose"
their lifestyle any more than someone "chooses" to have a ski-jump
nose, they shouldn't be denied civil rights, which other minorities
enjoy.
If conservatism is not the result of stinginess or orneriness (typical
stereotypes attributed to Republicans) but is something Republicans
can't help, there's no reason why society shouldn't tolerate
Republicans in the military or even high elected office- provided they
don't flaunt their political beliefs.
For many Americans, the discovery opens a window on a different
future. In a few years, gene therapy might eradicate Republicanism
altogether.
But should they be allowed to marry...?
Loki
Terrymelin
of evolution ... it appears that Democrats are the progenitor of modern man.
They are the missing link.
May Science be praised!
Loki
So it has been determined that the link between modern man and the
Republicans is the Democrat?
Cool.
Loki
Bob Champ
predisposing traits that cause one to adopt a conservative or liberal
attitude--not only in politics, but in every sphere of life.
In my time, I've seen a lot of rot from psychologists who have
scrutinized the conservative mentality and thoroughly misunderstood
it. I hope one day to see them put out a study on the liberal
mentality. I'll probably be waiting awhile for that one, however,
since most psychologists are liberals and don't know that they have
biases.
The sociobiologists would have us believe that "biology is fate" and
all of us are the prisoners of our genes, deny it though we may. I,
for one, would be horrified if this turned out to be true. But I do
believe that genes play a big our role in our actions, actions that we
might think of as arising from ourfree will.
Incidentally a conservative wouldn't necessarily be a supporter of the
GOP. I know conservatives who have great disdain for party politics of
nearly any kind, and who provide strong critiques of GOP policy.
People really don't understand that GOP doesn't necessarily equate to
conservatism because they don't know anything about conservatism.
Bob C.
Loki <cubby...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<jgg160lj8lg557k5s...@4ax.com>...
Mack Twamley
"Rob Petrie" <r*@att.net> wrote in message
news:Sm48c.35699$%06.1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>>
> Cute but you get no cigar from me on your parody or satire.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What parody? It's the simple truth.
Mack Twamley
"Terrymelin" <terry...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040323192352...@mb-m06.aol.com...
> This comes hot on the heals of Nature magazine's discovery that there is
proof
> of evolution ... it appears that Democrats are the progenitor of modern
man.
> They are the missing link.
Actually I don't believe this 'genetic' theory propounded above.
I think it's more of a "situational" thing. The fact is that most
Republicans' parents were not tied with the bonds of matrimony when
conception took place, making most Republicans natural born
bastards. I think the last "nice" Republican died around 1978.
Sanford Manley
> The sociobiologists would have us believe that "biology is fate" and
> all of us are the prisoners of our genes, deny it though we may. I,
> for one, would be horrified if this turned out to be true. But I do
> believe that genes play a big our role in our actions, actions that we
> might think of as arising from ourfree will.
You bet! If the jeans hadn't fallen around my ankles,
I would have not have gotten busted in the last raid
down at the bawdyhouse.
--
Sanford M. Manley
Just because there is a road, it doesn't mean it leads
anywhere. Just because we cannot see a destination,
doesn't mean there isn't one.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ansaman/
Terrymelin
>conservatism because they don't know anything about conservatism.
>
>Bob C.
The most conservative person I know is a Democrat.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>mentality
You would need for liberals to have brains in order for there to be a study. I
guess science will wait.
Terry Ellsworth
Mack Twamley
Is his body covered with scales ......or ......feathers?
Whichever, he's gotta be a jest of God.
PirateJohn
>> >conservatism because they don't know anything about conservatism.
No, but we know a helluva lot about selfish people, and they are inevitably
Republicans and claim to be conservative. So whose word are we to take on the
subject, yours or theirs?
~~~
"Yeah, and that's why it's still a mystery to me
why some people live like they do.
So many nice things happenin' out there,
they never even seen the clues." -- Jimmy Buffett, "Migration"
doc
wrote:
>No, but we know a helluva lot about selfish people, and they are inevitably
>Republicans and claim to be conservative. So whose word are we to take on the
>subject, yours or theirs?
That is extremely well-said!
By Jove, I think you're on to something.
PirateJohn
>>Republicans and claim to be conservative. So whose word are we to take on
>the
>>subject, yours or theirs?
>
>That is extremely well-said!
>
>
>By Jove, I think you're on to something.
Thank you Sir! The Doc is always a gentleman.
Bob Champ
> >> >People really don't understand that GOP doesn't necessarily equate to
> >> >conservatism because they don't know anything about conservatism.
>
> No, but we know a helluva lot about selfish people, and they are inevitably
> Republicans and claim to be conservative. So whose word are we to take on the
> subject, yours or theirs?
>
Well, you know one now who is not selfish and who has a number of
friends of the same views who are not selfish--me. On the other hand,
I know a good many Democrats and liberals--for these are the people my
profession has thrown me together with, who, if they were in public
office, would be hopeless spendthrifts, as long as they were spending
other people's money.
By the way, there are millions and millions of people who identify
themselves as Republican--are they all selfish? It's a ridiculous bit
of hyperbole to make the claim. I suspect you don't know many
Republicans or many conservatives.
The fact is that there is no real relationship between selfishness and
political party. You will find selfishness on both sides and
generosity on both both sides. Human nature does not belong to any
one group or club or organization.
God, John, haven't you learned one fucking thing in this life?
Bob Champ
Waterlou4
PirateJohn
Judging by Bush GOPer's don't need to have either a heart or a brain in order
to function.
Bob Champ
> >You can't be liberal without a brain.
>
Sure you can. If you believe that your best interest is served by
voting for a liberal, you might well do so and consider yourself
liberal in the bargain. You don't have to have an intellect or very
much education to do that. The liberal message is not so complex that
the average person can't understand it. (If you had said, now, that
you can't be a Marxist without a brain, I would have agreed with you.)
I will have to say, though, that most of the intellectual snobbery I
have seen in my life has come from liberals. Not all liberals are
like this, of course; I have known many who are the salt of the earth.
But the intellectual snob is largely a denizen of liberal land. Many
liberals are elitists who have a secret (and sometimes not so secret)
contempt for the man on the street.
Bob Champ
doc
wrote:
> Many
>liberals are elitists who have a secret (and sometimes not so secret)
>contempt for the man on the street.
If you think that Tories like Messrs. Bush, Cheney and Limbaugh have
any regard for the "man on the street", then you are sadly -- even
perversely -- misinformed.
Egads, I'm overwhelmed at just how much America mistrusts and despises
intellectuals. It's absolutely suicidal -- culturally speaking.
Your caricature of "liberals" is just about as silly as the
gun-toting, beer-drinking, ball-scratching caricature of Southern
rednecks. Very few such creatures exist in fact, let alone as broad
subspecies of the homo sapiens.
Better update your beastiary, Bub.
Bob Champ
academic, I know whereof I speak in calling them elitist. As far as
I'm concerned, my beastiary is quite intact, duc.
I'm not at all an anti-intellectual, though I am well aware of the
_trahison des clercs_. It is always good to be suspicious of
intellectuals, however, since they are often suspicious to the point
of paranoia of each other. I find my own home with conservative
intellectuals like Russell Kirk, who was a far more independent mind
than any liberal I have read about since at least the nineteenth
century.
I made no argument at all concerning Bush, Cheney and Limbaugh, so
your attack there is a complete _non sequitur_. You constantly bring
up these names in a way that you suppose is damning but is really only
a symptom of your political bias.
I did not "characterize" liberals inaccurately. I simply stated what
I know of them--and even then I was careful to point out that not all
liberals fall within that purview. Just look at some of the posts
that have appeared on this newsgroup, and you will find plenty of
elitism from the set that proposes to hold "progressive" ideas.
I fear for you, duc. You seem to be an educated man, but you do
implode at times and cannot tell the difference between an idea and a
string of acidic words.
Bob Champ
doc <drbo...@uswest.net> wrote in message news:<lmq6609mge35efuji...@4ax.com>...
doc
wrote:
>I fear for you, duc. You seem to be an educated man, but you do
>implode at times and cannot tell the difference between an idea and a
>string of acidic words.
Your concern is quite touching, Bob.
The Kentucky Wizard
If you two guys are changing vowels in you appellations toward
one another, then, if Doc is Duc, shouldn't 'Bob' be 'Bub'? ;-)~
--
© The Wiz ®
«¤»¥«¤»¥«¤»
Waterlou4
I've been in both academe and Washington, and I will back up what Bob said.
I have also met many Democrats who indulge in a reverse snobbery - pretending
to love the Common Man and putting on a blue-shirt-beer-drinking act. What
they love is the sweaty masses. They can't take people as individuals.
Why is this? It's because you can herd the organized sweaty masses into voting
booths and be confident of getting the result you want. You don't have the
burden of persuading each voter one at a time and actually having contact with
them.
Democrats - "the lady doth protest too much"
PirateJohn
>intellectuals. It's absolutely suicidal -- culturally speaking.
True. We had eight years of a really intelligent President (Clinton)
sandwiched between GOPers like Ford (nice but a bumbler), Reagan (cunningly
evil like a used car salesman on crack, and not too bright), and Dubya, who
cannot figure out which way is up.
PirateJohn
suspect.
There are politicians from all walks of life, in both parties, some whom are
confortable around blue collar folks and some who are elitists. But if you
think that the current crowd in Washington is going to sit down with Joe
Sixpack and drink Budweiser with him, then you are kidding yourself. Although
I can certainly see some of the younger Bushes, especially in Jeb's family,
buying crack rocks from Joe.
Bob Champ
doc, perhaps inadvertently, typed Bub at the end of his message. I
decided to play the letter switch out, just for fun, in my reply. The
same letter changes in both names, and both make sense, although I had
to avoid capitalizing the "d" in doc's name because it would have made
him the French equivalent of a Duke.
Bob Champ (who has had many worse tricks played with his name)
"The Kentucky Wizard" <Kentuck...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<iIP8c.95626$Cb.1257699@attbi_s51>...
doc
wrote:
>The
>same letter changes in both names, and both make sense, although I had
>to avoid capitalizing the "d" in doc's name because it would have made
>him the French equivalent of a Duke.
Your restraint is appreciated. I must confess that the vowel
substitution gambit was a temptation...Champ.
doc
>I have also met many Democrats who indulge in a reverse snobbery - pretending
>to love the Common Man and putting on a blue-shirt-beer-drinking act. What
>they love is the sweaty masses. They can't take people as individuals.
Oh, the irony!
You're a world-class philanthropist, Dolorous.
Bob Champ
English, a yearning for the mud). This is a kind of mania for
anything related to the "common man," from dressing like workers, to
using a lower class accent, to appealing to the lower classes (as you
rightly point out) by claiming to be one of them, on their side. The
Communists absolutely wallowed in it, and probably still do. But it
has a distinct place in the lives of modern politicians--for instance,
those members of the government who "support" public education in
public, but send their own children to private schools that the public
cannot afford. (As someone who lives around this neck of the woods,
I'm sure you know about that.)
I always laugh when I see some fat-cat Democrat talk about "feeling
your pain" and otherwise being phonies in order to attract voters. (I
remember when Jane Byrne, once mayor of Chicago, spent a couple of
nights at the notorious Cabrini Green housing project. Along with an
escort of police, of course. She was indulging in _nostalgie de la
boue_, but keeping all the privileges of her class. It was a hoot.)
These people rarely spend any time with "the people." And their
attempts to "help" are almost always disasters. One need only look at
the plethora of welfare programs we have inherited from liberal
administrations to find that a great many have backfired completely,
costing tax-payers millions of dollars.
I am myself from a working class background and resent like hell the
politicos who claim to "one of you."
Bob Champ
wate...@aol.com (Waterlou4) wrote in message news:<20040326032506...@mb-m20.aol.com>...
doc
wrote:
>I am myself from a working class background and resent like hell the
>politicos who claim to "one of you."
Well, being from a working class background myself, I find nothing
more reprehensible than yuppies who became professionals through the
sweat and sacrifices of their working class parents, only to reject
the precepts of trade unionism, public education, universal health
care and affordable housing for working people, and the dignity and
rights of workers.
My grandfather was a coal miner and subsistence farmer. My father was
a machinist. Their sacrifices and their persistence got me to medical
school. I owe them a duty of justice toward everyone who works for a
living.
Born-again capitalists always strike me as being just a tad bit
pretentious, in addition to being -- as a rule -- ingrateful bastards.
Give me a Roosevelt's sense of noblesse oblige over a Reagan's romance
with business any time!
PirateJohn
>a machinist. Their sacrifices and their persistence got me to medical
>school. I owe them a duty of justice toward everyone who works for a
>living.
>
I don't like to discuss my family because, to be honest, they were better
people than 85% of the fools that drip into this newsgroup, but my late father
was a practicing attorney and small town 'city attorney' (bascially part time
prosecutor) who, at one time when he was a young attorney, also leased an
Ashland Oil service station in a small Kentucky town in order to make ends
meet. My grandfather was a Cincinnati bus driver who parleyed that gig into an
unusually prosperous tobacco farm and then parleyed that into majority
ownership of the largest regional bank. All good people, all solidly
Democratic, and all people who knew about capitalism better than any of today's
lugnuts yet had compassion for their fellow men.
Today's average [1] GOP politician had their money handed to them on a silver
spoon and they genuinely don't have a clue about capitalism or compassion.
Some fools in this newsgroup (Carson comes to mind) have been critical of my
ability to hang with blue collar folks so I think that we see where those
assholes' true colors are at.
I've spent all of today hitting the blue collar biker bars and handing out
flyers for our Riding Into History charity (www.ridingintohistory.org) and
haven't seen the first die hard GOP-type offering to help. Plenty of helpful
blue collar types, but few yuppie biker types are concerned about charitable
fund raisers these days. And the three clowns with Bush/Cheney stickers on
their bikes? Exceptionally obnoxious and uninterested, even in motorcycling in
general; they seemed to just want to just parade their new bikes. Figures.
No, I'm not at all impressed with the majority of politicians, nor any GOP
politician in particular. Nor the vast majority of GOP types. They have
forgotten their roots.
[1] Of course, there are exceptions. Alas, at the moment, I cannot think of
any. And we have one or two well-connected GOPers in the bike club who are
indeed very active in the charity, but they are also in the minority.