Liberal men least happy

[shadow9d9]

Are you forgetting the Roman Republic that lasted for over 400 years?

I think he was implying that it did not spread when it comes to the Romans.

 

[nehalem256]

The Soviet Union never claimed to be communist. It's official name was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. As I recollect there actually hasn't ever been a self-proclaimed communist country. All of the countries that are generally labeled as being 'communist' label themselves as countries modeled on socialist principles. They also seem like to style themselves as republics.

So you are telling me that the country whose only political party was the Communist Party, and whose founder was Lenin an avowed Marxist wasn't communist?

And your evidence is that their official name was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? So I take it you also believe that North Korea is a democratic republic, after all its offical name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea ^_^

Also:

Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement which aims to create a classless, moneyless,[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.[3] This movement, in its Marxist–Leninist interpretations, significantly influenced the history of the 20th century, which saw intense rivalry between the "socialist world" (socialist states ruled by communist parties) and the "Western world" (countries with capitalist economies)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

 

[shadow9d9]

whose happy, whose sad, let's take a look...

look at the evidence. what demographic groups make up the liberal collage? well, first we can start with gays. that alone might suggest to a thinking person (not you guys) that, here we have a section of society (albeit minuscule) which is close to the most depressed group on the planet. gosh, sorry fellas. how about leftist hags? well, the overwhelming percentage of abortions are performed on (and by) liberals. whatever your take on abortion may be, the fact remains that it produces depression in the recipient (not the baby/fetus/zygote/whatever, it's dead). mommies and potential mommies killing babies, depressing. we could look at individuals, typical leftists, say ed schultz or chris (thrill up my leg) matthews, both these poor souls hyperventilate and foam at the mouth on a consistent basis, not sure what DSM-IV disorders they possess, but they are anything but happy. well, pretty sure you can see where this is going, i could list any number of other demographics groups that make up your global village with the same sort of results, but i know you fellas already have to deal with postpartum psychosis (liberal males suffer from this malady based on the suppressed gay/confused sexual identity gene prevalent in your subspecies) so we'll leave it there.

i know you're all familiar with the recent research by Columbia University which shows that a persons spirituality (religiosity) offers protection against depression. using new imaging techniques scientist have discovered that people who are spiritually predisposed have a thicker cortex, for the uniformed amongst you (regressives/leftists) the cerebral cortex is the brain's outermost layer made of gray matter that forms the organ's characteristic folds, areas of which are important hubs of neural activity for processes such as sensory perception, language and emotion.

being secular progessives, heathen compatriots or just plain lame athiests, you're all obviously part of the small cortex demographic. pretty depressing huh. psychotropic meds anyone?

This jumble of madness is not only insane, but impossible to read.

If you want to be taken seriously, use punctuation, use something resembling grammar, and be sure to CITE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING YOUR LUNACY!

You can't just make statements and think that because you said something, that it is automatically true.

I have to hope that you were doing an impression of a madman/schizophrenic.

 

[shadow9d9]

So you are telling me that the country whose only political party was the Communist Party, and whose founder was Lenin an avowed Marxist wasn't communist?

And your evidence is that their official name was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? So I take it you also believe that North Korea is a democratic republic, after all its offical name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea ^_^

Also:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Naming yourself something doesn't necessarily make it so.

"The Patriot Act" anyone?

"Affordable Healthcare Act" anyone?

And yes, look at the rest of that- "aims to create a classless, moneyless,[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order."

This isn't even CLOSE to what the Soviet Union was.

A great read is Red Plenty by Francis Spufford.

 

[nehalem256]

I think he was implying that it did not spread when it comes to the Romans.

Why does that matter? The Roman Republic was highly successful for 100s of years.

Communism is basically an abject failure(at best) everywhere it has been tried.

There is really no comparison between the 2 forms of government.

 

[shadow9d9]

I'd just like to say I'm neither Democrat or Republican, but I lean Conservative.

That said, surveys/studies like this are completely worthless. Most everything has a bias to it. I know happy liberals. I know unhappy liberals. Same with conservatives. I don't think either really out number the other.

In my personal life this is what I see:

1) Most people who work don't choose to bitch because they are too busy working. Liberal and Conservative. They choose not to add fuel to the fire or work themselves up over things they cannot change. Most people in the position realize nothing is actually going to change, and we'll continue to work. "They" are going to take our money regardless, "They" are going to pass whatever laws they choose. No matter which hat we wear. They instead choose to just live life and make the best of it in the current moment while they can.

2) Those who don't work (and choose not to) have more time to bitch about the other side and point fingers. They like being the victim. There is some reason, or someone is out to get them. They yell about some cause, or some agenda. "Don't beat puppies" "Hug every kitty" On and on it goes, from both sides. Pushing their agenda because their life has no purpose otherwise. Get a job, I say.

3) Surprise surprise. Both have a similar % of those working, and unemployed. There are good people on both sides, and bad people on both sides. It's just that their jersey and pom-poms are different colors.

Their agenda should really change focus and look at those really in charge... "Them". Because it's impossible to hug every kitty. You can't right every wrong. There is just more wrong around the corner. Wrong will be invented just to keep us busy.

Just my observations and thoughts.

It saddens me that you either have very simple people in your life or very stereotypical ones.

The people that are well off should be the most attune to what is going on and should care the most about those that aren't necessarily as successful. As for those that don't work and choose not to... well, I honestly can't recall the last time that I have met such a person.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Are you referring to people that are working themselves to the bone and therefore are absolutely suffocated, with no time to breathe, and no future...that they then are so burnt out that they don't have time or energy to care about issues? In that case, sure, that is understandable. That is part of what is wrong with US society right now.

For those that are successful though, they should absolutely be the most aware of the problems affecting those around them, and if they are an empathetic person, should care VERY much about the rest of society. Of course, these people could also be the same people that just took an axe to the world economy in 2008, lead by greed and selfishness.

I have been very fortunate, and I have the time, energy, and awareness to be able to see what is happening around me and it bothers me very much. Talking to people, no matter their "side," reveals that it affects everyone and people have more common ground than they realize. Most are simply uneducated and can only repeat lame talking points that their "side" has taught them. Independent thought is hard for most.

 

[nehalem256]

And yes, look at the rest of that- "aims to create a classless, moneyless,[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order."

This isn't even CLOSE to what the Soviet Union was.

A great read is Red Plenty by Francis Spufford.

Sure it was. I even linked you the attempts to do exactly that in the Ukraine. Of course the fact that such attempts at common ownership led to cannibalism is perhaps why the communist dream was not achieved:

Evidence of widespread cannibalism was documented during the Holodomor.[51] The Soviet regime printed posters declaring: "To eat your own children is a barbarian act."[52]:225 More than 2500 people were convicted of cannibalism during the Holodomor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Whereas in American capitalism had led to such bounty that the poorest amongst us literally eat themselves into disability.

 

[shadow9d9]

Why does that matter? The Roman Republic was highly successful for 100s of years.

Communism is basically an abject failure(at best) everywhere it has been tried.

There is really no comparison between the 2 forms of government.

He simply stated that it did not spread. Why does that matter? Ask him.

As we just explained to you, communism has never been tried. Oppressive dictatorships that used communism as a rallying cry to come to power, and implemented quasi socialism, HAVE however. Since we and the rest of the "democratic"(yeah right) first world countries ALSO employ PLENTY of "socialism," you'd think you'd be able to get that through your thick skull easier.

 

[shadow9d9]

Sure it was. I even linked you the attempts to do exactly that in the Ukraine. Of course the fact that such attempts at common ownership led to cannibalism is perhaps why the communist dream was not achieved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Whereas in American capitalism had led to such bounty that the poorest amongst us literally eat themselves into disability.

Did you even read what was posted? Haha.

I'll try again. Yes, oppressive dictatorships in undeveloped countries(early 1900s SU) on mostly barren land, without infrastructure or care about their people, can lead to horrible things.

Still not in any way related to what communism is. Brutal dictators do terrible things.

China is becoming more capitalist. LOOK! China has horrible human rights and runs a brutal regime filled with censorship, etc. CAPITALISM IS TERRIBLE!

That is exactly what you are trying to do.

 

[Vic]

not sure when you ever saw me make that claim (even though true). but, i actually don't understand the question. the title of the thread is "Liberal men least happy", no? so all i did was give some info supporting that position. what i posted has little to do with empathy, mine, yours or others. being "progressive" (which is obviously what i'm making fun of) is a choice my friend, why would i empathize with someone who purposefully made a stupid one? especially a choice (once realized) that can be corrected on the spot, instantaneously. unless your argument is that progressives have no choice with regard to their political leanings? anyway Vic, if there was something i posted which you disagree with, be specific and i'll answer the question to the best of my inadequate (ask lotus) ability.

What kind of horrible world would it be if everyone was always in agreement?

 

[Abraxas]

Are you forgetting the Roman Republic that lasted for over 400 years?

Rome is a very interesting case in that at the heart of it, Rome itself, and affiliated areas it was relatively progressive for its time in terms of things like democracy, however, I file it under oligarchy for a few reasons. First, while in later parts of the Republic plebeians could rise to any rank, in theory, first, for much of the early portion there were legal prohibitions on any except members of Roman aristocratic families and as a result even through the later periods Roman politics were largely dominated by a small number of very wealthy individuals from specific bloodlines. What's more, the vast, vast majority of their territory was occupied - the specific implication being that the vast majority of the people who lived in the Roman Republic had no legal course by which to influence Roman policy as conquered peoples were forbidden from voting.

So, on the one hand, on paper, yes, the Roman Republic allowed for voting on elected offices by the common people, the practical matter was that during the period, a relatively small number of people in Rome and their descendents ruled everything with little restriction and then Rome itself ruled over a variety of other lands with little restriction.

 

[Abraxas]

There is a lot to deal with here and it is definitely worth talking about. I wish it were a conversation in person.

A few comments.

The Soviet Union had many, many problems. The problem was more than just lacking technology. They lacked the ability to output food, let alone other things. They imported a majority of food, if I remember correctly. When they HAD the food, they did not have the infrastructure to get it out there to everyone. Then, you had the other problems, from the dictatorship to the corrupt bureaucrats, down to the mob bosses that ran the cities.

Very true, at first at least. Yes, at the time of the Russian Revolution, Russia was horribly underdeveloped and its agricultural practices kept all but the very wealth at the door of famine more or less all the time. However, after Stalin, say what you want about the guy, the CCCP had made enormous strides in rectifying that, in particular on the infrastructure front. I'll agree they started badly and substantially deviated from Marx calling for them to wait until you had a fully developed capitalist state to even make the attempt, but they were pushed far enough, fast enough, that that excuse kinda ran its course by the 50s. By that point, the Soviet Union was a superpower in its own right and many of the problems in feeding its people came from wasteful mismanagement, corruption, and poor prioritizing of resources with enormous expenses in military that could have been better put to use at home. MAD basically ensured the USSR was never going to fight anyone they didn't want to anyway, not even factoring in their military adventurism in places like Afghanistan and so the arms race was enormously destructive for them.

As for "democracy," the US runs a very, very loose representational "democracy." The link between the voice and the people is tenuous at best. The winner take all system certainly doesn't help, nor does the massive land size, or the insane differences throughout the country(Louisiana compared to NYC).

Agreed on all counts. That said, what is popularly referred to as Democracy is a fundamentally different type of government than what had come before it. Since the collapse of the Roman Empire, the European Monarchies ran everything in the area and I'm sure more than one aristocrat had a good laugh at the idea of the unwashed peasants running the government and yet, if they got their crap together, today they absolutely could. Would require them to get their crap together, but it has happened before in other places.

Star Citizen is, as far as I am concerned, will be a complete failure to many, many people. It is something that is banking on nostalgia of a name that has produced nothing of worth in well over a decade(1.5 if I recall), and is a game of scope that is trying to do everything for everyone. I do like Kickstarter, however, it has great potential for the future of videogaming in particular. This will only happen IF the first wave of games are spectacular. So far, they have not been.

The success or failure of Star Citizen is tangential to my point, which was that crowdsourcing has provided an avenue that allows enormous sums of money to be raised quickly and democratically whereas that kind of resourcing even ten years ago would have been extremely difficult without either a wealthy backer or a major studio behind it. It wouldn't have to be a video game, if people were inclined to do so you could fund the prototyping of an experimental medical device or a scientific study or whatever it is you and the public think important enough to fund.

As for why communism won't work, that is simply my personal opinion. It relies on the goodness of others to care for one another. Human beings, imo, are simply incapable of thinking outside of themselves. The problem is only us. Greed, jealousy, ego, etc prove on a daily basis that we are not capable of such an existence. Sure, there is a possibility that when we invent warp drive and the Vulcans visit us, and within 50 years poverty will vanish and we will unite as a people to better ourselves... I do not consider this a likely scenario, however.

I think that is a bit of a strawman position, honestly. If you look into socialist theory and socialist literature, you won't find very many appeals to altruism. You will find a number of arguments from greed and lust for power, in particular in the branches of communism that explicitly call for elimination of private property. The argument being that most men own little and are ruled by many and that for them, the most immediate and rational way to improve that is to eliminate private property, thereby enabling them free access to all the goods humankind can produce, and removing all in power over them, thereby freeing them up to live their lives for their own sake instead of the sake of their boss, their police, their politicians, etc.

If you don't believe that will work, fine, many don't, but I think you are smarter than to buy into the idea that people who do believe it will work do so on the grounds everybody secretly wants to just get along and will be nice to one another that so many detractors push. To go back to my earlier example, things like credit unions and mutual companies and co-ops exist to make money but they manage to do it by worker and customer ownership instead of shareholder ownership. That is where you can look at applied socialism in a modern context, workers owning the means of production, with no idealism present.

 

[row]

This jumble of madness is not only insane, but impossible to read.

with regards to the madness and insanity, you'd have to take it up with Dr. Weissman, professor of psychiatry and epidemiology at Columbia University and chief of the Clinical-Genetic Epidemiology department at New York State Psychiatric institute, which was the source of much of my material.

yea, i've read that schools in new jersey are well below the national average, which may explain your inability to comprehend. on the other hand, being a progressive, maybe you're just too depressed to focus?

 

[Vic]

with regards to the madness and insanity, you'd have to take it up with Dr. Weissman, professor of psychiatry and epidemiology at Columbia University and chief of the Clinical-Genetic Epidemiology department at New York State Psychiatric institute, which was the source of much of my material.

yea, i've read that schools in new jersey are well below the national average, which may explain your inability to comprehend. on the other hand, being a progressive, maybe you're just to depressed to focus?

Ah.. did mommy's trust fund run out?

 

[row]

Ah.. did mommy's trust fund run out?

only fund my mom ever had was for a supply of jim beam. pretty sure it was depleted before she died though, but thanks for your concern!

 

[Vic]

only fund my mom ever had was for a supply of jim beam. pretty sure it was depleted before she died though, but thanks for your concern!

Ok you're right. . This thread is crazy surreal.

 

[Moonbeam]

i know you're all familiar with the recent research by Columbia University which shows that a persons spirituality (religiosity) offers protection against depression.

Of course we are. And actually, other than yourself, there's not a poster here who doesn't have it memorized, you poor inferior showoff, which explains the inaccuracy of your summary. You should have said that among the folk tested who are all high risk for depression, having a family history of it, say, that those among those unfortunate genetic inheritors of such a predilection who professed an interest in religion or spirituality also showed increased resistance to the depression for which they were still at high risk.

r: using new imaging techniques scientist have discovered that people who are spiritually predisposed have a thicker cortex, for the uniformed amongst you (regressives/leftists) the cerebral cortex is the brain's outermost layer made of gray matter that forms the organ's characteristic folds, areas of which are important hubs of neural activity for processes such as sensory perception, language and emotion.

M: Of course. That explains why 6% of scientists are conservatives and 60 % of thick cortex Republicans believe in a young earth and deny evolution.

r: being secular progessives, heathen compatriots or just plain lame athiests, you're all obviously part of the small cortex demographic. pretty depressing huh. psychotropic meds anyone?

M: I think you mean the group that discovers and patents those drugs.

Finally, the researchers claim no connection between religious or spiritual interests causes cortex thickness. Research is ongoing in that area.

So the bottom line is that when a conservative brain defective runs into scientific data, it can make no proper heads or tales of such information and turns it into the usual conservative rationalizations.

 

[Atreus21]

Doesn't IQ also negatively correlate to happiness? Don't liberals on average have higher IQs?

 

[brandonb]

Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Are you referring to people that are working themselves to the bone and therefore are absolutely suffocated, with no time to breathe, and no future...that they then are so burnt out that they don't have time or energy to care about issues? In that case, sure, that is understandable. That is part of what is wrong with US society right now.

Not necessary suffocated with no time to breathe. Think of the phrase "come out of the woodwork." I believe they are just keeping it private. Don't wish to spend the energy discussing/fighting with others because in the end, not many change their mind anyways.

So people just choose to keep it private, and don't talk about it.

For those that are successful though, they should absolutely be the most aware of the problems affecting those around them, and if they are an empathetic person, should care VERY much about the rest of society.

Those who are successful keep it even more private. Why risk ruffling some feathers and potentially put your job and your lifestyle at risk over what appears to be a rather innocent conversation about friends. Political discussions people can get upset very quickly, and then they go spread rumors very quickly. I know the COO of the company I work for goes to a Lutheran church, sends his kids to their private school. My guess he probably votes republican (I never asked him what he votes, nor would he probably tell me)... So what do you think would happen if he mentioned something about gays (if his viewpoints fits the typical Christian republican talking points) and that starts floating around the office? It could end up like the Duck Dynasty guy where the company decides just to suspend him or remove him. He'd never risk it.

I believe people fear the thought police. Is that the society we are creating? This is happening more and more people are being victim to that fear and are clamming up. Leaving the political discussion to idiots out there with nothing to lose. The educated, the successful, and so on should be talking, but they fear the thought police and decide their livelihood is not worth it, and they speak by voting for their candidate.

I have been very fortunate, and I have the time, energy, and awareness to be able to see what is happening around me and it bothers me very much. Talking to people, no matter their "side," reveals that it affects everyone and people have more common ground than they realize. Most are simply uneducated and can only repeat lame talking points that their "side" has taught them. Independent thought is hard for most.

That's a good thing, and I have noticed the same thing, and do the same thing as you do. But like I said, most especially those who are successful seem less receptive to that type of conversation.

 

[row]

And actually, other than yourself, there's not a poster here who doesn't have it memorized, you poor inferior showoff,

well except shadow9d9

.......You should have said that among the folk tested who are all high risk for depression, having a family history of it, say, that those among those unfortunate genetic inheritors of such a predilection who professed an interest in religion or spirituality also showed increased resistance to the depression for which they were still at high risk.

sort of a convoluted sentence, but thanks for making my point professor.

M: Of course. That explains why 6% of scientists are conservatives.....

see you've been hanging around huffpo. probably never occurred to you that the reason there are more liberal scientist is that liberals, possessing most of the worlds mental health disorders, look for cures for themselves.

M: I think you mean the group that discovers and patents those drugs.

hahaha, you're the gift that keeps on giving. see above

Finally, the researchers claim no connection between religious or spiritual interests causes cortex thickness. Research is ongoing in that area.

chicken/egg...study shows secular's more depressed, what's your point.

So the bottom line is that when moonbeam's brain defective runs into scientific data, it can make no proper heads or tales of such information and turns it into the usual progressive rationalizations.

fixed that for ya

 

[bradly1101]

we can start with gays. that alone might suggest to a thinking person (not you guys) that, here we have a section of society (albeit minuscule) which is close to the most depressed group on the planet. gosh, sorry fellas.

I'm gay and downright happy, like the other gays I know, and there's this:

"Straight men more stressed, depressed than gay men, study says"

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/29/news/la-heb-lesbian-gay-bisexual-stress-20130128

 

[row]

I'm gay and downright happy, like the other gays I know, and there's this:

"Straight men more stressed, depressed than gay men, study says"

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/29/news/la-heb-lesbian-gay-bisexual-stress-20130128

in all seriousness bradly it brings me no pleasure to point out certain indicies, please understand the context in which i do it (here at this forum), and i'm glad that you're happy, as well as your friends. but, in spite of the article you referenced, if you are willing to broaden your research a bit, you'll discover in no uncertain terms that my statement rings true.

hope you and yours have a safe and sane celebration this evening and that all of your wishes become reality in the new year.

 

[thraashman]

Doesn't IQ also negatively correlate to happiness? Don't liberals on average have higher IQs?

Yep
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/

 

[shortylickens]

I must be smarter than Steven Hawking.


Either that or my happiness gland is broken.

 

[Atreus21]

Yep
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/

Then I think the findings of this thread make perfect sense.