Liberals have a higher rate of mental disorders than conservatives

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte

... We are headed towards a religious fascist police state, ...

not exactly the way Harvard U's poll study put it.

They connected the 1950s high religious population with the falling of religion among the baby boomers then to the current growing numbers as a deficit of boomers "beliefs" satisfaction.

Actually the religious state of HS & college students was the most interesting part. Another piece was that 25% of college students become more religious before graduation. Most of the rest of the info was not that significant. The religious grouping crossed said conservative, independent, and progressives.

If anyone's concerned about "religious fascist police state" watch the vid for comfort.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by RoninLB
If anyone's concerned about "religious fascist police state" watch the vid for comfort.

Fascism never had an association with religion, other than to persecute it, particularly Christianity and Judaism. I suppose false perception is more important than historical reality, at least for liberals that is.

Socialism is the most important and dangerous ingredient in fascism.

[FrayAdjacent911]

I knew this would spark some discussion! (and some mudslinging)

Sure, I've known 'conservative' people who have problems.

But it amazed me when I saw people SO distraught and mentally ANGUISHED after the last presidential election. Geeze, get over it. It's not really like it's SERIOUSLY going to affect their personal lives and well being.

Right now, I'm not extremely happy with our President or our government, but in my day to day life, they have pretty little tangible impact.

Since liberalism is more founded in emotionality (IMHO), it would make sense to me that people who act based on their emotions (what FEELS right, or what makes them FEEL better), would have more emotional or psychological problems.

[RoninLB]

I read a few times that successful fascist power had a somewhat successful theory to allow somewhat free religious expression as a blow off valve to help contain an internal revolution.

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by FrayAdjacent911


Since liberalism is more founded in emotionality (IMHO), it would make sense to me that people who act based on their emotions (what FEELS right, or what makes them FEEL better), would have more emotional or psychological problems.

afaik liberalism was twisted from before 'Nam to post 'Nam as an instrument of political power. Pre 'Nam liberalism was a cleaner picture without the advocacy hate message.

[jorian]

The left goes for counselling the right goes to war.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by RoninLB
I read a few times that successful fascist power had a somewhat successful theory to allow somewhat free religious expression as a blow off valve to help contain an internal revolution.

That would suggest socialism, in this case fascism, controlling "religious expression." It would not suggest a fascist control of the government by religion (there never has been a fascist theocracy); religion is a tool (case in point Hillary Clinton's recent invocation of the Bible to defend illegal immigration) to socialists, or "fascists" as the case may be.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Boy, you would have hated the Founding Fathers.

The founding fathers were the liberals of their day, at least the Jeffersonians were, the Federalists were the fascists of their day.

Jeffersonians; including Mason, Henry, and many others did not want to leave the Confederation and saw the dangers of the centralization that the federalists wanted. The federalists poo-poo'd the Jeffersonians, also known as the anti-federalists, saying that none of the abuses they were worried about would occur unless the three branches agreed that it should occur.

And here we are today. The sociofascist coup staged by Lincoln has become the fascist state the anti-federalists predicted would come.

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose

); religion is a tool (case in point Hillary Clinton's recent invocation of the Bible to defend illegal immigration) to socialists, or "fascists" as the case may be.

yes

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by FrayAdjacent911
Since liberalism is more founded in emotionality (IMHO), it would make sense to me that people who act based on their emotions (what FEELS right, or what makes them FEEL better), would have more emotional or psychological problems.

I tend to disagree with this. In my experience, it's usually the new-conservatives who are driven by emotion, either fear, or hate, or "repulsion." E.g., abortion issues, the war, etc. They seem to get so worked up in their fear (what they call WOT), or emotionally-driven comments about "liberating" people or whatnot. The new-conservatives simply can't discuss an abortion issue with someone who is pro-choice without them calling the pro-choice person either directly or roundabout a "baby-killer" (this is most indeed an emotional response). I would think someone would have to actually kill a baby to be a babykiller, and I don't know of any person here who has done that. If you discuss Muslims (we're not even talking terrorists now...), you're an "enemy supporter" or "traitor" (emotional responses), discuss religion, e.g., whether Jesus walked on water or ice, all of a sudden, the one who brought up the ice theory is "antichristian" (most certainly an emotional response). To me, an antichristian would be someone who targets christians for something, e.g., burn churches or something....not simply discussing a theory that someone came up with. How is that antichristian? It's pure emotional on the neo-conservatives part.

To me, it seems that most of the new-conservatives opinions are solely based on some sort of emotion, whether it be fear or hate or whatever.

[cowtown]

Originally posted by FrayAdjacent911
Right now, I'm not extremely happy with our President or our government, but in my day to day life, they have pretty little tangible impact.

Just wait until W siphons the gas out of your 911T and Cheney shoots your dog.

From what I heard, they're covering your neighborhood sometime this weekend.

[FrayAdjacent911]

CC, when you base 'conservatism' on the Religious Right, it makes sense. There are nutjobs on both ends of the political spectrum. And the other comment about religious people dealing with their problems 'religiously' also makes sense.

However, I'm fairly conservative, but I'm very much NOT religious. In particular discussions on a divisive issue (gun control), I've found many opponents of the Second Amendment use emotional arguments rather than logic to push their point. More emotionally susceptive people, who generally tend to be on the left of the argument, pick up those emotional arguments and regurgitate them like gospel.

I think tho, that with 'progressives', personal responsibility is not emphasized as much, and having 'issues' is not a social stigma in their circles. I'd wonder how many people in, say, L.A. who lean to the left have seen a therapist for various 'issues'. It's almost like it's a requirement, if you have an 'issue', you should see a shrink.

I dunno, it can go both ways to varying extents. Fingers point both ways!

[cool_chick]

Another new-conservative emotion has to do with gay marriage......

Allowing gay people to marry each other will bring chaos to the country. Kids will become gay or become promiscuous because of this. Can't have my little Johnny gay or promiscuous now because of ....those people....

There is nothing to substantiate this, this is purely emotional. An unemotional (and realistic) response to this issue is indifference...doesn't matter either way, as it doesn't affect me and my family one iota...it is my duty to raise my children correctly (personal responsibility).

I dunno, it can go both ways to varying extents. Fingers point both ways!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[juanbenae]

i think i am hot for c_c, not sure if it's her politics, or that girl on girl make out at the vegas deal, but i gots it bad......

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by cool_chick
I ...calling the pro-choice person either directly or roundabout a "baby-killer" (this is most indeed an emotional response).

No, you are dead wrong. This is a factual response that the pro-abortion crowd simply does not want to hear. To perform an abortion is to stop the development of a human life; cold, hard fact determined with no emotion. It may be presented with emotion, as well it should be, but the conclusion itself is reached through very simple and direct reasoning. Not emotion.

The distinction is that the liberal position is arrived at through emotion and with very little in the way of deductive reasoning. There is a fundemental difference in cognitive approaches. One that relies on reason and fact (while possibly presented with emotion) and one that relies on emotion. An important distinction.

I would think someone would have to actually kill a baby to be a babykiller...

So "fetus killer" would be more accurate and accepable?

[Moneyguy1]

"Facism never had an association with religion....."

A fascist theocracy of sorts existed in Germany during Hitler's time. Christain symbols, Teutonic beliefs were mixed toform a sort of "religion" based on these desparate beliefs.

All one has to do is read up on the Nazi preoccupation with symbols like the sword of destiny and the Holy Grail, among others.

Socialism and facism, at their core, hate each other.l

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins

So "fetus killer" would be more accurate and accepable?

Do men and women here who are not doctors here on the board "kill" a fetus? Just because a man or women here are doctors, does that mean they "killed" a fetus?

For the man, doesn't it require a womb? For the woman, doesn't it require getting pregnant first?

[RoninLB]

The libs obsession with marginalizing the non belivers is creating an opportunity for the conservatives to win over the independents. The new conservative leaders are less likely to polarize their position. The action is more of a Mel Gibson movie than a bomb thrower like Pat Robertson.

The Far Right has been slowly winning more and more power. When the strange brew of evangelicals and Catholics work together they seem to be successful in their God inspired social reform.

[nostatic]

don't worry, be happy!

The conservatives are just all big Bobby McFerrin fans...

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
No, you are dead wrong. This is a factual response that the pro-abortion crowd simply does not want to hear.

Don't want to hear, or is it more accurately they simply don't agree with you?

Edit: And who is "pro-abortion?" Do you know people you know seek pregnancy so they can go to the doctor and abort it or something? Do your pro-abortion friends intentionally knock up girls so they can go to the clinic and abort it? I honestly don't know one pro-abortion person. I would think someone who is pro- on a topic means they really like something (for example, I'm pro-good-work-ethic). Or is this an emotionally driven comment utilized in an attempt to mislead?

To perform an abortion is to stop the development of a human life; cold, hard fact determined with no emotion. It may be presented with emotion, as well it should be, but the conclusion itself is reached through very simple and direct reasoning. Not emotion.

That's a matter of opinion. Many don't believe (including many doctors and the USSC) that a zygote is a person.

Do you believe those who are against the death penalty as they feel a person's life should not be legally taken by another are "emotional" in their conclusions?

I also ask you this, can you continue this conversation on this topic without allowing your emotions to get in the way?

The distinction is that the liberal position is arrived at through emotion and with very little in the way of deductive reasoning. There is a fundemental difference in cognitive approaches. One that relies on reason and fact (while possibly presented with emotion) and one that relies on emotion. An important distinction.

That, again, is a matter of opinion. Without any details provided (you have provided none, you simply made some sort of statement about a group of people without any examples, substantiation, anything....) renders this statement moot.