Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Nazis relied on just such studies to eliminate opposition to their regime. Here we go agian!!!
Plays right into the Obama strategy where he plays the daddy to the little mindless children. Plouffe suggested just such a scenario when he said the little folks couldn't be bothered with economic statistics. Like Hitler who claimed he could keep the population quiet by giving them jobs and keeping them fed as they would close their eyes to his transdressions.
1. Um...Iraq and Afghanistan were begun under a Republican administration
And WWI, WII, Korea, Vietnam? Newsflash: we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter as a result of Obama's escalation...
Quote:
2. Reagan and Bush racked up HUGE deficits. Clinton had three balanced budgets
Reagan offed the USSR. I'll take that trade. Bush raised taxes. His mistake. Bubba reaped the rewards of the dot-com bubble.
Quote:
3. Welfare reform occured under...wait for it...Clinton!
Which he (and probably you) fought against tooth-and-nail, until the GOP threatened to override his veto. Why, those nasty elephants were gonna put the poor welfare folks out in the streets in barrels! Staring children! Black velvet paintings of big-eyed tearful urchins!
But I know who is driving the racecars. The same rich Americans who we cut taxes on, only so they could open that new foreign operation...how about those Bush tax cuts, have they been filling your pockets yet?
this may be odd of me but I never really cared how much someone else made or how much they are taxed..how the hell is that going to shape my life?....weird right?...unless I wanted them to pay my bills, then yes I too would be upset if they were no longer doing that....
I mean, shouldn't I be mad that these people got to keep more of their own money and hire whoever the hell they wanted?...I mean the only purpose these people should serve is to pay my taxes and only hire my kind.....who the hell do these people think they are wanting to run their businesses the way they see fit and keep what they earn?....what about me?
and I didn't take out loans/mortgages I didn't understand nor even needed and then cry that I "was a victim that got preyed on by the big mean banks"...until I see some kind of documented proof that a bank forced you to take out a loan you knew you couldn't pay back, or at least lied about the size of the loan, its really time to stop crying "victim"
and for the record the banks shouldn't have never sold those loans to begin, in a free market, they would have gone out of business instead of being bailed out...that's what they do....you screw up the market, the market screws you and was telling you, you should fail.....but the "too big to fail" crowd wouldn't allow that....
remember libs, it was the market that wanted them to fail...it was the govt that bailed them out....but having anything close to a free and open market is unthinkable to them for some odd reasoning...everything must be regulated by a heavy handed govt... even lemonade stands....
sorry, but if you are depending much of your life based on how much someone else make and their taxes...your not going to get far...
"how about those Bush tax cuts, have they been filling your pockets yet"
what?..what does that mean?...were you trying to say that the tax cuts were somehow suppose to "fill my pockets"?...by what means?...tax cuts are meant to allow you to keep more of what you earn, they are not meant to magically "fill my pockets"...I expect to do that through my own work..I know some believe that "tax cuts" somehow magically transfer money to the wealthy, but that is not the case....they still had to go out and work for...it just became easier because they could save and invest more..
and why the hell do you people seem to think that you are not making as much because someone else isn't paying more taxes.... I can't even fathom the thought that I am not making much money because someone else isn't paying enough taxes....sounds like an excuse for not taking responsibility for your own paycheck..."its not my fault my paycheck isn't as high as I would like it to be, that doesn't reflect on my abilities, its the the rich fat cats that aren't paying their fair share"....
is there corruption?...yes, you damn right it is, but mostly in the form of big biz getting in bed with big govt....but pro-big govt people never seem to recognize that...
but to think that alot of our problems stems from someone else making too much money, someone else not being taxed enough...I got to ask you...have the money of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Steve Jobs hindered your life is some way?...if so please list the reason....its easy to talk about the evil rich when they are faceless and nameless...
anybody can assign blame to vague random groups but it comes a different story when you have to name people and list their specific deeds if you want to place any real blame...
This subject has been hashed and re-hashed countless times here on CD, and all referencing this almost two year old article.
Move along. Nothing new here.
So the statute of limitations ran out? What would have changed in the last two years to favor your view? You just want to change the distressing subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
and I happen to think overall liberals are not more open minded. On social issues maybe, but they are the first to judge people who do not agree with them. For some reason many liberals think their way of thinking is the only correct way. I happen to feel people all have a right to think the way they want. I may not agree or understand but with rare exception very few things are fact: most are just opinions.
Nita
The more intelligent person would spot faulty reasoning quicker than a less intelligent person. So the idea that liberals are first to judge may actually serve to prove the article's point. It also could mean that conservatives just don't offer any convincing arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiftymh
This is because liberals measure intelligence by how much you agree with them.
Everyone thinks they are smart. The subset of the population that runs around saying "I'm stupid" is pretty invisible. So, whenever someone bumps into someone else who agrees with them, the tendency is to like them and think of them as being smart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gysmo
you are absolutely right! collages, the bastions of liberalism they are full of knowledge but have no idea what to do with it. yes, they can call themseves intelligent. Big Bang Theory types, but they're so ignorant
Grammar and spelling please. It completely undermines your position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricGold
I have pondered for years as to why anybody would vote for a person, Obama, with no experience....I asked countless liberals as to why would you cast your vote for someone who as no past indicators that he is equipped to handle the job....
the responses?..."he's like super-smart"..."he could heal America's image around the world".."he's a good speaker"...(really, that one took the cake)....Honest to God, if someone could list at least one important accomplishment, prior to his election, I will change my position...
(and here we are, at present, am I surprised that Obama couldn't help lower the unemployment rate or do anything to improve things significantly?....of course not, there has been no reason to believe he could...not sure why everyone else thought otherwise and getting mad)
That made no sense, I am sure someone straight out of Harvard is "super-smart" yet you wouldn't hire him to be CEO of a company, let alone an entire nation, yet here we are....and I have yet to hear one reason from the uber-intelligent left "voter" why they were for him..
I have also wondered why liberals put so much faith in a govt, made of people who never had to hire someone, pay business expenses, turn a profit, or meet a payroll to try and fix and control the economy..some of these people never even had a real job in the private sector .....yet you put your faith in them to create jobs?....WHAT?...
and then turn around and attack the actual business that provide jobs whenever the complain about the govt obstruction in someway....think about that, they want jobs, but when told by the actual job providers that they are being directly or indirectly roadblocked by the govt, they side with the govt....you want jobs, but side with those who are making it harder for you to get them?...made up of people who never even had a real job themselves?..
I remember before Obama was elected, a survey was taking by CEOs and I think 70% of them said an Obama presidency would be bad for the Economy...how did the liberals responses?...that "they are mad that they had to pay taxes now instead of taking another vacation, and they are being racist"...here, we have CEOs, you know, the ones that provide the jobs you people want, telling us that this guy could be bad news and you cry "racism"?.....
I can think of a number of stories where business out-right telling us they don't like what the govt is doing and instead of arguing that, the left dismisses it with hostility....why?...I thought you people wanted jobs? these people are telling us why there is no jobs but instead you try to defend and protect the govt from charges made by the business world..for what?...because its a democratic held govt?...is party loyalty so important to that you would shot yourself in the foot to hold it?...is that what "smart" people do?...
I can do this all night, the mind-numbing, hypocritical, bizarre things I see liberals do, yet I have not once thought it was out of stupidity or lack of intelligence...out of what?....still trying to figure that out...but I don't think its because they are "stupid"...
You fail to take into account the fact that the unfortunate choice for President in 2008 was between two men. I didn't vote for either of them, but most people did and Obama was the better choice. I would vote for someone with little experience over a propped up puppet any day especially if they showed they could unify the country. Unfortunately, we've made a country where the possibility of such a choice is infinitesimal.
You go on to talk about the opinions of CEOs. I don't care one whit about them. I don't kneel down before them so I can feed myself. I would do the opposite of what they suggest because their main interest is themselves and what's good for them is almost certainly not in my best interest. My country is not an economy, my country HAS an economy. And it isn't everything upon which to base all decisions.
Democrats and liberals as well as Republicans and conservatives do things which are head-smackers. If we had 300 different political parties, such disparities might be distributed to their rightful political groups, but we have only two (one, really).
I'm a little behind the times since it is from a few years ago. A researcher looked at political views and tried to link them to intelligence. It wasn't the case that conservatives in general or Republicans had lower intelligence levels, but social conservatives were shown to have lower levels of intelligence. That would include people who vote based on values and not conservative financial principles.
It's an interesting study. In thinking about the outcome, it does make sense to me. I've challenged social conservatives to debates on several fronts (as I do with people of all political mindsets) and in the end when all of their rationalizations are shot down, it all comes back to emotion as their justification. Perhaps these people have a left side of the brain that is weak and thus dominated by the right.
I'd be interested to see if anyone has found any other studies in similar peer reviewed journals.
No, I haven't looked for studies that show links between intelligence and social conservatism. There is something I think you would find very interesting called cultural cognition. There are researchers at the Yale school of law who have conducted studies on the nexus of cultural aspects of an individual and how that transcends in attitude and belief systems toward volitile political issues. It's very interesting! Do a search for Cultural Cognition and it will take you straight to the Yale Law School site. There are multiple papers you can read. Well worth it!!!
"Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States' universities."
The foreign students are from 73 different countries. What an odd grouping to study. What do the 1600 foreign students have to do with American social conservatives? That's right, nothing! They needed to skew it so they could get the results they were after. Pitiful. Just pitiful.
A researcher looked at political views and tried to link them to intelligence. It wasn't the case that conservatives in general or Republicans had lower intelligence levels, but social conservatives were shown to have lower levels of intelligence.
It makes perfect sense that SOCIAL conservative views (as opposed to fiscal conservatism) would be linked to lower intelligence, since they both are closely related to adherence to repressive, patriarchial religions. These religions are the primary proponents of traditional social institutions (marriage between a man and woman), and almost always oppose diversity in modern lifestyles (homosexuality), as well as the choices given to us by modern technology that do not serve the interests of the growth and power of the Organized religion (birth control and abortion). Anything that deviates from absolute conformity to traditional roles and values will be opposed.
The more intelligent and educated a population is, the less religious it is. There is a strong correlation between high intelligence and atheism and agnosticism, but the link would be much stronger if the human brain wasn't so good at "walling off" religious beliefs from the logical and rational parts of the brain.
The manipulative ways that the Powers-That-Be in America define certain groups make it much easier to pit Americans against each other, thus preventing any meangingful change to the status quo of "Have Everythings" versus "Have Nothings." Most of the people I know are social liberals but fiscal conservatives. We don't want government wasting time passing laws on gay marriage, we want government to stop overspending and racking up debt that cannot be paid back without total economic collapse.
Who represents us politically? The Democrats want ever-larger and more expensive government, endless world wars, and free rides for everyone who does not want to work. The Republicans want ever-larger and more expensive government, endless world wars, and the top millionth of 1% of the population getting 99.9999% of all the wealth, instead of the 98% they have now.
Our political system is designed to give the illusion of "choice" for Americans, while ensuring that NOTHING can EVER change. Often Ron Paul and Dennis Kuchinich, supposedly the two far extreme opposites of the political spectrum, agree on things like stopping endless wars and the Free Trade fiasco that destroyed us. Every other politician--the ones who claim to be "mainstream" and thus acceptable to voters--want the disastrous policies of our government to continue, despite the ongoing decline and inevitable collapse.
Americans need to start looking at REAL alternatives to the status quo, and these WILL NOT be the politicians offered by the unified Republicrat Party. At this point, our only hope is Ron Paul in 2012 -- or 100% guaranteed total collapse, and a Great Depression that will make the First one seem prosperous.
On the other hand, the mess created by our government (under the orders of Big Business) over the past 20 years has been so total, so devastating, and so wide-spread, that virtually NO legitimate economist can see any way to stop the collapse. It may very well be too late, but any hope is better than none.
When our own capitalist class preys on its fellow citizens (mortgage backed securities?), it is the key to prosperity.
Capitalist class? No, it was the government that preyed on its own citizens by selling fraudulently misrepresented mortgage backed securities.
Quote:
...it becomes quite easy to construct a criminal case for literally millions of counts of accounting, securities, wire and mail fraud against the GSEs. To the extent executives at Fannie and Freddie signed off on financial statements disclosing the portion of their balance sheets that held "AAA" securities and these had been purposefully misidentified we should be exploring prosecution for violations under e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley.
GSEs = Government-Sponsored Enterprises, i.e. Fannie and Freddie
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
