# Scientists Find 'Liberal Gene'



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

This is interesting since it appears to correspond to other studies concerning this very area. Some scientists worry that our species may become extinct because of an inability to reproduce. A 21 year old man today only produces about 20 of the sperm of a man 21 years old back in 1970. If the trend continues we will have a generation of eunuchs within 30 years. Perhaps some will find that offensive, but it is something that concerns scientists, and they are addressing it. I often wonder if that also means men are loosing other male factors like the nerve to stand on their own two feet and instead look to government as a mother figure. Seriously.



> Researchers have determined that genetics could matter when it comes to some adults' political leanings.





> According to scientists at UC San Diego and Harvard University, "ideology is affected not just by social factors, but also by a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4." That and how many friends you had during high school.
> 
> The study was led by UCSD's James Fowler and focused on 2,000 subjects from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Scientists matched the subjects' genetic information with "maps" of their social networks. According to researchers, they determined that people "with a specific variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to be liberal as adults." However, the, subjects were only more likely to have leanings to the left if they were also socially active during adolescence.
> 
> "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.


Source: Scientists Find 'Liberal Gene' | NBC San Diego


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

So will selective breeding start up? :thumb:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> So will selective breeding start up? :thumb:


No, selective cutting.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

yes, by all means, we need to pass a new law, liberals must be neutered and not allowed to breed! :bop:


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

:rollin: :rollin:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well, the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives are honest and sometimes people can't take that. Liberals pretend that everyone is friends, but most are back stabbers. Since they didn't brake it down for us like that I thought you should know.

By the way that button on your avatar. The founding fathers were east coast, but you can bet every cent you have that they were more conservative than today's conservatives. As a matter of fact our constitution is a Puritan document and they would be in shock to be in Boston today. The old town square in Boston was used to hang witches and Baptists, and I think you if they caught you with that button. I wouldn't be so proud of my ignorance if I was you.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Please let me know an example in a current race where a Conservative is the only honest candidate, and the liberal is being dishonest?


Right here in North Dakota when Earl Pomeroy says he voted with Nansi Pelosi for North Dakota benefit. Pick about any liberal. I see them as dishonest people, even with themselves.



> I'm sure you already believe you have, however you are confusing colonial America with the Founding Fathers


.

Actually a French history proff that just studied in North America compared Puritan documents within our constitution. Even though they were about 140 years apart their wording was near identical.

I see the current democrat party as the sum of bad Americas. They dislike the America the founding fathers created and are doing their best to tear it apart. The preach tolerance as if it was a virtue without realizing it's simply a lack of principles.

Say, did you know Harvard was started by Puritans? Did you know Yale was started by ten pastors? As liberal as you are I'll bet you refuse to believe Christians would do anything like that.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Here you go Prairiewind check out some of these sites. Most of the history of our nation that you read in public schools leaves out much if not in fact presents disinformation.

http://endtimepilgrim.org/puritans11.htm

The Petition of civil liberties should sound familiar.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0838617.html

Compare that to our constitutions bill of rights.

http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs ... f%20Rights

Often the truth must be searched for. Digest and regurgitate does not work in a deceptive world.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

The results of this study are interesting. However, I am not sure that they are surprising. They support my notion that there is something fundamentally wrong with conservatives. Now we know that conservatives lack the right gene or that they were socially maladjusted during their teen years.

In all seriousness, I have been sitting down and trying to remember my teen years and those former classmates that are now staunch conservatives. Almost without exception, they fit into one of the following categories: 1) that spoiled rich brat that got everything handed to him by his daddy or granddaddy, 2) that kid that talked tough and got the snot kicked out of him whenever his buddies weren't around, or 3) that kid with the little willy that got ridiculed in the gym shower. Those folks are now grown up and have adopted a "screw you" attitude.

In contrast, my former classmates that are now liberal had and have a different mindset. They were the kids that tried to get along with others. They tried to coexist with others and see other viewpoints. They read a lot, studied hard, played sports, and were generally happy. They are generally happy now.

Maybe this is why most liberals are focused on making the world better. Maybe this is also why most conservatives simply don't want to make anything worse. One is a philosophy based on confidence, education, and regard for your fellow human. The other is based on fear and self-preservation.

Plainsman and others see liberals as weak and dishonest because they explore different viewpoints in an effort to understand concerns and underlying causes of problems. Again, this is the best strategy to solve problems. Conservatives, on the other hand, do not care or respect different viewpoints.

Also, while liberals try to solve problems through open communication and debate, conservatives try to solve problems through sheer force and bullying. Why? Because they saw these strategies work on them while they were kids. This is why the Tea Baggers shouted down people during the health care town hall meetings. They could not let open communication and intelligent debate take place because facts would not advance their agenda.

So for the conservatives on this board, I need to ask... Which of those three classes of kids did you belong to? The spoiled brat, the one that got beat up behind the monkey bars, or the guy with the little willy in the shower?


----------



## utahhunter1 (May 3, 2009)

BigDaddy said:


> So for the conservatives on this board, I need to ask... Which of those three classes of kids did you belong to? The spoiled brat, the one that got beat up behind the monkey bars, or the guy with the little willy in the shower?


I am a conservative and I have experienced just the opposite of you and to answer your questions I was never spoiled, never beat up and bullied and the wife sure doesn't complain. :thumb:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So for the conservatives on this board, I need to ask... Which of those three classes of kids did you belong to? The spoiled brat, the one that got beat up behind the monkey bars, or the guy with the little willy in the shower?


Wow, I don't know if I believe you BigDaddy, you had to make that up. My parents were so poor that I was extremely happy with school meals. Sometimes at home it was oatmeal for breakfast and potatoes for supper. If it wasn't for wildlife in the fall meat would not have been on our table as the bank owned all of our cows.

Somehow I was accepted and not ostracized like some of the poor kids. I guess I was just a little more outgoing and didn't let not being rich stop me. I borrowed my way through college and I paid every penny back. As far a bully I never bothered a smaller kid, but I never let a bully push me around either. If you were easily bullied see me previous posts (where is the Y chromosome).

Like others I found the rich spoiled brats are now liberals. That and the others that were poor like myself but did nothing about it and want a free lunch are liberal. The pot heads are liberal. The only gay I know of in our class is also liberal.

I know many of our farmers that belong to Farmers Union are liberal, but it's just because that organization has convinced them they can't make it without government support prices. I don't think the republicans are any less supportive, but somehow the democrats have been more convincing.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Big Daddy,

Just to help me out in thinking your statements thru. Where did you go to school ???
I went to a one room country school for 8 years. Then a rural ND high school and find just the opposite to be true.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

BigDaddy, perhaps we have both formed opinions from our childhood. It's interesting that we apparently dislike the same behaviors, but our experience has caused us to reach opposite conclusions. Very interesting.

Obama and his teleprompter fooled people in 2008. BigDaddy you got your beloved president in 2008, now how do you explain the public response to the past two years. Watch the elections today. They are not for republicans, they are against Obama.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Zogman:

I went to school in Minnesota and graduated in a class of 150. It was an agricultural town with quite a bit of local retail until the Reagan years of the 1980s.

I stand by my comments. I look back at my classmates that are active, vocal conservatives, and it is evident that they never fit in with the general student population for one of two reasons: 1) they were part of a social, economic class that considered themselves above the rest, or 2) they were bullied or singled out in some way.

My liberal friends, on the other hand, viewed themselves as part of a larger group (the class). They fit in, socialized, and got to know other members of the class. In essence, they found their role in the larger group. I think that this is why liberals view themselves as a citizen first and individual second. Conservatives, on the other hand, view themselves as individuals that may or may not a constructive member of the larger population.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

BigDaddy I think your full of liberal psycho babble. I have to get my chest waders on before the bs goes over my hip boots.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

I have spent alot of time in rural Minnesota. Just doesn't sound like the areas I am familer with.
Lake of the Woods, Roseau, Kittson, Marshall, Polk, Murray, Pipestone, Lyon, Lincoln, Nobles, Counties.
Where were you at?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

_Conservatives, on the other hand, do not care or respect different viewpoints. _
wow Big Daddy, with this statement any credibility you might have gained just went to hell! :rollin:

like Obammie, look in the mirror and you will see the problem. oke:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> Conservatives, on the other hand, do not care or respect different viewpoints.
> wow Big Daddy, with this statement any credibility you might have gained just went to hell! :rollin:
> 
> like Obammie, look in the mirror and you will see the problem. oke:


It's true. Observe a conversation between a staunch liberal and a staunch conservative. The liberal will likely let the conservative express their point, offer a counterpoint, and the conversation will go back and forth. At the end of the conversation, the liberal will likely smile and simply agree to disagree. If you watch the conservative, they will probably interrupt while the liberal is trying to speak, use the latest buzz term coined by Rush or their favorite talking head, and then scoff or roll their eyes because they think that the liberal is an idiot.

Do me a favor and watch a little news TV, be it Fox, MSN, or any venue that allows this sort of debate. Watch how people like Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin behave and tell me that I am wrong.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

We must be on different planets BigDaddy. On TV it's always the liberal that will not shut up and shouts down the conservative. At least 80/20 percent of the time anyway.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

BigDaddy just explained to me something I've never understood...that being how any intelligent person could be liberal. He detailed his thoughts of basic differences that in my experience are almost word for word opposite of what I've seen in my life.

And one needs to look no further than this forum to see his views of who debates with more respect are backwards. Remember Ryan? He would get so red-faced if someone made it difficult for him to spew his biased BS that you could all but feel it through your computer. He would refuse to answer direct questions to defend or explain his position. With VERY few exceptions, conservatives on here stay in a discussion until all points have been thoroughly explained and sources revealed. But the liberals, again with VERY few exceptions, can't be bothered by details and sources.

And now we have Prairiewind doing drive-bys and absolutely refusing to answer ANY questions to explain his position. I would be interested to see examples of any of the conservatives on here doing anything similar. There are some liberals on here that do debate respectfully. BigDaddy is certainly one, and Robert Langager and Sea Bass are a couple others that come to mind. That tells me it takes a level of intelligence well above mine and that of the other liberals to make any serious attempt to defend the liberal ideals...so most don't even try. I guess it's like Gunny Highway said...."A man's GOT to know his limitations"

Conservatives will almost always argue the issue, using things like voting records and public statements to determine a potential candidate's value to America. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to attack the messenger rather than argue the message. They can't even bear to consider that the tea party might be gaining popularity because they actually represent views Americans have been missing for a long time, and instead send a team of lawyers to Alaska to find a way to discredit a threat rather than debating the issues. They have had it their way for decades with liberally biased media networks, but scream bloody murder when conseravtives get only ONE that has the "audacity" to talk about the other side of the issues.

Yep, here's how liberals debate...


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Did anyone take Ed's tone as an attempt to agree to disagree?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Csquared said:


> Did anyone take Ed's tone as an attempt to agree to disagree?


If they can think Obama is ok they can think Ed is agreeable. I find liberals can often deny reality. I don't now how they do that and retain credibility, but somehow they do it with half the nation. Well, maybe it's not the credibility, but the illegal alien promise, the welfare check, support prices, groups like ACORN etc. It can't be the poor voting democrat unless they are stupid. The democrats are the rich in congress that say they are for the poor yet after the poor have voted democrat for half a century they are still poor. How does that work? 
Oh, then there are the unions who spent 200 million in this years election. Do you belong to a union? Do you think your tax dollars should go to unions. What is it again that Obama is trying to funnel to the unions, $160 million isn't it? How will that benefit you? It will not benefit me. I think it's to help them retain retirement accounts. Retirements that give 80% of original wages and higher in some cases. What do you think of that? You think Obama isn't trying to buy votes when he does things like that? If you don't you cheated your way through third grade.  I mean if you can get 2 + 2 you can get the motive right?


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Csquared:

It is a funny world that we live in. Just today, one of my good friends asked me how anybody with any intelligence could possibly be conservative.

As far as how liberals and conservatives debate on issues though sites like this, you might find this story interesting: http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/05/31/liberals.conservatives.online/index.html?hpt=C2. It supports what I have seen on this board for many years. Conservatives tend to congregate on sites with like-minded people. They like to surround themselves with others that agree with them. It is sort of a safety blanket. You can bash Obama, bash "liberals" (although I don't think that many of you know what a liberal is), and basically pat each other on the back and tell each other how right you are. You also run off anybody with dissenting opinions because that makes you feel good and you get the "atta boys" from your buddies.

Liberals behave on internet message boards quite differently. They welcome dissenting viewpoints and opinions because they like to understand issues. Have you ever visited the Huffington Post or other similar websites? You will see that it is the liberals that invite (no, embrace) dissenting opinions and open debate.

Want to see how conservatives debate? Look no further than Ann Coulter. She is great at belittling others and the President, mocking dissenting opinions, and talking over others. However, she cannot debate issues with facts because she generally lacks them. When a moderator steps in and prevents her from talking over other participants, she'll huff and puff, claim that she is not being respected, and will often storm off the set. Intelligent, mature adults do not behave this way.

You also accuse liberals of attacking the messenger instead of the message. Really? You really want to go there? Take a little time and peruse what people on this board have said about Ted Kennedy, Conrad, Dorgan, Pomeroy, Obama, Biden, or many others with a "D". They don't discuss or even attack Kennedy's Congressional record. They call him a dishonest drunk. They don't attack Obama's message or policies. Instead, they put up post after post accusing him of being Muslim, being born in another country, or other lies. You don't call this attacking the messenger? Sorry, but as my dad would say, "That dog don't hunt".


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Oh I often attack Obama's policies. They are Marxist in my opinion as are many liberal ideas today. Obama said his most influential author was Karl Marx. We look at friends he associates with which are socialists. You say that's name calling, but I say it is labeling what he is. Any policy that comes out of a socialist, Marxist is bad. That is name calling to you, but to me it's a heads up of what kind of policy to expect. 
I talked to one fellow on here (maybe he will speak up) and during the last presidential election they would not debate him they just cut his ability to longin off. They did that to him five or six times. He said he didn't say anything nasty, he just didn't agree. They were calling Palin about every name in the book. 
Your assessments don't ring true with our experience BigDaddy. I rarely use emoticons, but your line deserves a "here is your sign" :bs: Your so far off from my life experience you are at 180 degrees.

A fellow I worked with a couple of years ago PMed me the other day and told me Massachusetts was more conservative than North Dakota. They just reelected who? I rest my case. There is another statement that needs a sign. :bs: When Reagan was asked if he had ever been to a communist country he said "no but I was in Massachusetts once". That about sums that up.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Plainsman wrote:



> Your assessments don't ring true with our experience BigDaddy. I rarely use emoticons, but your line deserves a "here is your sign" Your so far off from my life experience you are at 180 degrees.


So, who is "us"? Do you now speak for everyone on this board, or does this support my notion that conservatives simply congregate with others that believe everything that they do?

This also supports my notion that I have brought up time and time again. Plainsman, you use the word "liberal" liberally on this board. Anybody that disagrees with you is a "liberal". Any dumb idea is a "liberal" idea. Anybody that offers a dissenting opinion to your personal views on immigration, the military, or governmentis a "liberal". You bash the ELCA for allowing prayerful debate on an important subject. You have stated that you are leaving the ELCA because they are too "liberal". Frankly, I don't think that you know what a liberal is or what liberal positions are. I really don't.

Measure 2, which I agreed with, attempted to infringe on a person's private property rights to outlaw a practice that many think is unethical and unsporting. This is a liberal idea. If I read your posts correctly, you supported it. How "liberal" of you.

Curbing the commercialization of hunting, which I also agree with, is an attempt to tell a landowner what he or she can do with their own real estate. It also attempts to restrict a person's ability to exploit their assets for personal gain. In other words, it is directly against concepts of capitalism. This is a liberal idea because it restricts one's personal gain for the greater good. If I read your posts correctly, you support many of these efforts.

Holy cow, Plainsman! You're a liberal! I came up with two pieces of evidence in only a couple of minutes. The reason that you see the world as 180 degrees is that you simply have your labels switched around.

Steve Earle gave a concert in Bismarck a few months ago. He stated that he found it amusing how some people called Obama a socialist. Steve stated, "I know what a socialist is because I am one. Obama is no socialist."


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Plainsman wrote:



> Obama and his teleprompter fooled people in 2008. BigDaddy you got your beloved president in 2008, now how do you explain the public response to the past two years. Watch the elections today. They are not for republicans, they are against Obama.


While I think that many people disapprove of Obama based on the polls, I think that this election was more about Pelosi than it was about Obama.

I stand by my vote for Obama in 2008. He challenges the status quo in Washington. This is a direct threat to those in power, both on the left and right side of the aisle. People push back when they are threatened.

I will also tell you that I would vote for him again today bacause he forces everybody to evaluate their positions on different issues, track politics, and get involved. This is good for the country. I would certainly rather have that than four years of a do-nothing conservative that wants to maintain the status quo.

I think that all of the demonizing of Obama has forced people to forget that he did advance some meaningful legislatioin and initiatives in his first two years. He pushed for and got expanded coverage for lower-income children under the SCHIP pogram. He put over 2 million more acres into wilderness areas. He established extremely strong rules relating to lobbying, lobbyist gifts, and the hiring of lobbyist by the federal government. He eased restrictions on use of federal money for stem cell research. He appointed an excelled Supreme Court justice.

He pushed for and obtained passage of the stimulus package. Most economists will tell you that the stimulus was one of the most successful federal programs of the last century. However, nobody is taking credit for it for fear of being labeled a socialist or for growing government. However, it largely prevented our recession from being a depression, and our economy would be in even worse shape without it.

Last, and most importantly, he pushed for health care reform. We simply need to reform the health care system in this country to ensure that all people have access to high quality medical care. Republicans will say that they were shut out from the process, even though many of the components of the bill were their ideas. They also failed to offer any suggestions for improvement when they were asked. I think that the bill will be a success, not a failure as many predict.

He has had negatives too. He failed to push programs to create more jobs. The US EPA is running around unchecked, moving ahead with programs that many think are unnecessary and overly burdensome. He also failed to get out of Iraq soon enough. I won't argue with that.

All in all, though, could McCain have done any better? Are any conservatives offering any better ideas or are they simply spewing the same old rhetoric to get voters angry. I'll take action over talk.

Now we'll see what the Republicans will do with their new-found power. I will bet that they will spend most of their time opposing the White House and chucking rocks at Obama than they will advancing legislation that will help this country.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

BigDaddy wrote:


> It is a funny world that we live in. Just today, one of my good friends asked me how anybody with any intelligence could possibly be conservative.


So is your point that our country was founded by idiots????? I'm sure you know what "conservative" means, right?

and again:


> "liberals" (although I don't think that many of you know what a liberal is)


You and I have discussed this before after your detailed answer to my question of why you proclaimed to be so proud to be a liberal caused me to question whether you really _were_ a liberal, so why don't you do me the favor of explaining what the word "liberal" means to you now.

and again:


> Liberals behave on internet message boards quite differently. They welcome dissenting viewpoints and opinions because they like to understand issues. Have you ever visited the Huffington Post or other similar websites? You will see that it is the liberals that invite (no, embrace) dissenting opinions and open debate


Been there numerous times, and have yet to see anything intended to give non-believers a warm and fuzzy feeling.

and again:


> You also accuse liberals of attacking the messenger instead of the message. Really? You really want to go there?


I'd love to! One of the big differences between conservatives and liberals, contrary to what you've posted above, is we prefer to let others think for themselves. If someone choses to hate someone because he killed his girlfriend, that's his right. But I could write for days detailing reasons to dislike the 3 non-Dakotans on your list...based solely on their public record.

and again:


> Intelligent, mature adults do not behave this way


.

I'm not a big fan of Ann's. Kinda like Rush...hard to argue what they say but not fond of how they say it. And on those lines, you forgot to mention Ed. He storms off sets , too. 




You want me to use someone else as an example? I got more :wink:


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

how are you lib's feeling this morning....... uke: uke: :rollin:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Hmmm. Funny how the only one able to get you to come back to the discussion was another one like you.

And you copied his post. He's flattered, I'm sure. But it doesn't support his claim that it's the conservatives who find safety in numbers and pat each other on the back on internet talk forums. :wink:

But since you're back, are you now going to explain what the tea party "movement" is, and how big money has coerced the sheeple to follow?

Come on, even Tom Brokaw acknowledged it on network TV...you can do it


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

BigDaddy very eloquently accused conservatives of refusing to allow any sort of two sided debate to occur when they controlled the format, yet you refuse to answer direct questions that directly relate to your posts.

How is that any sort of attempt by you to promote any other viewpoint?

I'm offering you a chance to explain why I'm wrong, yet you refuse.

What are you afraid of? You didn't shy away from debating global warming the other day, but it's easy to Google enough info on both sides of that issue to stay in the discussion, but why won't you defend your hatred of the tea party and it's players?


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

viewtopic.php?f=69&t=86898&p=694459#p694459

Geez...you're STILL debating global warming, asking others to devote 15 minutes for just one of the links you've posted, yet not even 30 seconds to explain any of your tea party posts.

You might want to look up the definition of "credibility", because if you truly are here to change anyone's mind, your credibility will prove to be even more valuable than your knowledge.

Good luck! :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You might want to look up the definition of "credibility", because if you truly are here to change anyone's mind, your credibility will prove to be even more valuable than your knowledge.


I could not agree more. These are wonderful words to keep in mind. We have seen liberals blow their credibility simply through their blind hatred of Sarah Palin. At least we watched one liberal self destruct that way.

BigDaddy wrote:


> So, who is "us"? Do you now speak for everyone on this board


Us would be those of us on this thread currently debating you. Trying to make more of it is not totally honest is it BigDaddy?



> Steve Earle gave a concert in Bismarck a few months ago. He stated that he found it amusing how some people called Obama a socialist. Steve stated, "I know what a socialist is because I am one. Obama is no socialist


Socialist has such a bad connotation that many will not admit they are. We all know what a socialist is. Someone who takes all money from everyone and redistributes equally is a communist. Someone who takes money that people have earned and redistributes it to those they think deserve it are socialists.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

So are we going to give liberals birth control? oke:


----------

