As for the limbic vs. forebrain “theory”, it is just that — a theory. Since it is not even universally accepted that there is such a thing as “mammalian thinking” versus “reptilian thinking”, it can hardly be credible that one ideological preference uses one kind of thinking, while those with another ideological preference use another.

You might be referring to a study done at Berkeley, of all places, that indicated (surprise, surprise!) that liberals had oodles and oodles of positive traits, while conservatives had oodles and oodles of negative traits. That so-called study was laughable.

It’s the difference between the reptilian fight-or-flight, patrol territory, secure resources approach and the mammalian one which allows for communication and cooperation between individuals.

Even worse, your sole point, that “liberals are arrogant/liberals think they know the truth” is a very weak one, considering the level of arrogance displayed by yourself and the other conservatives who visit this site.

Yes, I do think I am smarter than every single person who voted for Bush. It’s a deeply held conviction.

Frank…it’s painful to think that there are people smarter than me. However, it’s a burden I must bear for all humankind.

Frank…check your grammar/punctiation on that last paragraph you wrote. At quick glance I find 6 errors. Pretty amazing.

I rest my case.

JK

I know there are people who are smarter than I am. Neither one of them is you. Hehe.

What passes for evidence of dumbness in the “liberal court”: To misstatements by two different people. Yes, now I’m convinced, Conservatives are dumb, all right!

Yes, Frank. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Even on you, and the other 59,000,000 people who voted for the dumb guy.

As Dan Quayle (R) once said…”What a waste it is to lose one’s mind, or not to have a mind is being very wasteful.”

Or this gem, from Mr. 40% approval, George W. Bush: ‘Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?’

Sometimes, I actually think that our brains (liberals vs. conservatives) are wired differently. It would be an interesting study that would not stand a chance of getting funded.

I do urge you to cheer up. It’s just politics, big F.

Despite Frank’s long whine/rant, I vow that for the next 3 months, I will refrain from calling Frank, or any other right leaning person, dumb.

JK

SadieB: Not once on this blog have I ever heard anyone say,  I wonder what Frank thinks about this or  can we get an opinion from Frank?
Not once have I ever heard anyone say that about anyone. So I guess I’m in good company.

SadieB: I am here for two reasons, and two reasons only:
1) Because liberals are incredibly arrogant. They assume they have a lock on the truth that is so firm, that evidence is no longer required. Their world is full of “givens”: Bush is evil, Rove is evil, Cheney really runs things, we invaded Iraq for oil, etc., etc., ad nauseam, ad infinitum. One of the things I do here is ask for evidence. I get called stupid a lot because I’m supposed to “know” the liberal talking points are true, and asking for evidence is considered to be “trolling” – by those self – same liberals, anyway. What I do here is try to present some countervailing point to the “given.” Often, the source is ridiculed, as if, somehow, the right wing doesn’t know when the sun rises and sets until they read the New York Times’ weather report. Often, I am accused of being obsessed with “links” Why? Because I can find them and the lefties can’t? There’s plenty of information on the ‘Net. If I were so inclined, I could find both sides of an argument in a few minutes.

2) Liberals have an attitude that they “know” the “truth”, whereas conservatives have benighted “opinions.” In their eyes, the difference between a liberal and a conservative is education. I wish I had a dollar for every time I ws told I should read some history or talk to a black person. Once, some one asked me, “Have you ever been inside a Section 8 apartment?” (I’ve lived in one for about 15 years). “Were you ever in the military?” (Army, four years). The point is that those questions translate (in my mind) into “If you only knew whwt we knew, you would believe what we believe.” But I do know what they know, but I also know something else, and I believe something else.

So don’t fall into the pit where JadeGold the Putz, Loopy Velez, and Leo the Lyin’ King are. Stand on your own two feet, argue with me all you want — you can even tell me I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about — after all, a really good argument has to bring that up at least once, right?

Just stick to the topic, and stay off the irrelevant, unnecessary, unknown, personal side of me. Save that for JadeGold the Putz, Loopy Velez, and Leo the Lyin’ King.

As if this is some monumental achievement.

11%.

Democratic party has elected enormously more blacks to statewide office and Congress than REpublicans have.

Democrats elect hardly any blacks to office. Multiplying a small number by another small number (i.e. Democrats elect X times more blacks than Republicans) doesn’t get you a very big number in return.

Far less than 1% of our elected officials are black. That is the point you don’t seem to get. (You also continue to avoid answering my question about black governors.) Blacks who do get elected rarely serve constituents who are not predominately black.

Now that Southern racists dominate your party

Republicans are not my party. Additionally, this is the kind of slander that prevents Democrats from winning in the south. Lastly, please show me how other areas of our country are electing black state officials any differently than “the south.” Black people hardly get elected ANYWHERE. Wake up.

Now isn’t the pot calling the kettle black! Not once on this blog have I ever heard anyone say, “I wonder what Frank thinks about this” or “can we get an opinion from Frank?”

Yet here you are, 24/7, chiming in on things you don’t know anything about, blathering on and on and and “critiquing” people’s posts by pretending to misunderstand them. Or maybe you really do misunderstand, maybe you really are that simple-minded? If so, you would do much better to keep your half-formed analyses to yourself.

Don’t you have relatives to bore? Or co-workers or something? Couldn’t you just go to a nearby bar and annoy people there for a change? What makes us so lucky to be the recipients of so much of your spare time and crackpot opinions?

All those ‘indecipherable metaphors’, I’ve been holding back to see if a

simpler version of English was more to your liking, has obviously been an

exercise in futility for the both of us. All the restrictions have been

bottling up in me because I couldn’t throw in a little prose , here and there,

just to break up the monotony.

In addtion, now my clarity having been masterfully surveyed by the

monarch of mediocrity, Fran DiSalle, I am found wanting.

A’hm gonna have ta git that bullshitty ol’ ‘quasi-cryptic logorrhea” goin’

agin.

I don’t see how we disagree, JW. Yes, the Democratic party has elected enormously more blacks to statewide office and Congress than REpublicans have. Almost all black republicans that managed to get elected as Republicans did so in the South during reconstuction, when white conservatives weren’t voting — so it’s an aberration. Now that Southern racists dominate your party, Republicans don’t elect black people. Glad we agree.

What you really mean (yes, I’m a mind reader like you and JadeGold the Putz), is that you can’t explain yourself, so you want me to decipher you for you. If you can’t communicate any better than that, you’ll get no help from me.

See, all your quasi – cryptic logorrhea is much more bullshit than cryptic. I have no desire to decipher the Semanticleo Code when all it does is translate jibberish into bullshit.

Since you didn’t bother to answer my question about black governors…I’ll ask again: How many black Democratic governors have there been? (Bonus question: What party affiliation does he now claim?)

You seem to have this impression that the Democratic party has some sort of electoral superiority in the election of African Americans, and as evidence you point out how few blacks have been elected by Republicans.

Pot, meet kettle.

The Democratic record is just slightly less dismal for electing blacks.

Aside from your nonsensical (if not mythical) game {which contains the stupid non sequitur: “I guess since they all look alike to Republicans, the trick is effective and they end up believing their Party is ‘diverse’. Which trick? The cameraman’s trick? How are people on the convention floor made aware of the cameraman’s trick. And, who says the cameramen (camerapersons?) are Republican? }, your post says this: “Anyway, I was wondering, if 1% represents those folks we see on TV, where does the other 1% come from to make up 2%? Any theories?”

Let’s see if we can make sense of this, SadieB: 1% of the 5 blacks at the convention represent the blacks that support Bush (who got 11% of the black vote in 2004), then we get .05 blacks or one black person a tenth the size of Gary Coleman. Where’s the the other .095 of a black person? Lou Costello would say, “I don’t know.” Bud Abbott would say, “Third base.”

You’ve got the convention confused with the so – called general population represented by the 803 people in a poll. Confusing “speech” with “language” may be the least of your problems.

And, leo, once again your non – contributory, unsolicited, unwarranted xritique of my post makes no sense… What Freudian slip? I guess you didn’t read the whole thing, either, like that idiot Loopy Velez.