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.
Conservatism and closed-mindedness almost always go hand in hand.
Seriously?
I've discovered quite the opposite. It's liberals who are close-minded.
For example, for years I was a staunch democrat. As a kid, I grew up hearing stories about how much democrats did for the poor, working and middle classes.
Fast forward to today---democrats now put illegal aliens ahead of the millions of suffering underemployed and unemployed American citizens. They do this by refusing to make E-verify the law of the land and running everybody in the workforce through it to weed out the 8-million no-match SSNs. Democrats of yore would have been truly horrified to discover that there were 8 million no-match SSNs who held jobs using stolen or fake SSNs. Upon hearing this, they would have expelled those no-matches from the work force. Instead, today's democrats fight tooth and nail to NOT weed out these no-matches.
There are more examples. There is a loophole in the law that says it's okay if someone uses your SSN as long as they don't use your name with it. As a result, the SSA won't tell you if someone is using your SSN. Instead, you find out when the IRS comes after you for not filing a tax return for a job you never held. Democrats of yore would have been quick to close this loophole.
If liberals were so open-minded and intelligent, they would have realized that democrats stopped looking out for Americans. With that knowledge, they would have worked to get bluedog democrats back in office since the bluedogs remember what democrats once stood for.
A little critical thinking from liberals and a little research would go a long way. Yet, when I point this out, what I get in return from liberals is name-calling.
BTW, I'm not a republican. In fact, the RNC called our house and asked us to join. I told them flat out why I would never join.
Neither party is looking out for Americans. I never vote straight party line. Instead I look at where each candidate stands on the issues. Yet at one time I would have expected much, much better from the democrats. Why can't liberals see this?
As we all know, strict religious followers tend to be conservative. Anyone who can only cite "the law" as a reason something is wrong or bad (ie, drug use) is more likely to be conservative.
I"ll give you a black and white issue, see how many libs can give you a straight answer on it. " OK, TRY your gun grabs. I"ll kill you by the hundreds if you try, and so will hundreds, if not thousands of other gunowners. What will you do about that, hmm?"
The next time some wack job goes on a killing spree, they should investigate you.
No, hon, it's not the only argument. It's just the type that belongs in this thread. I suspect you also use irregardless if you are someone who uses anyways, which is only in use due to situation comedy writers. If you wish to sound ignorant, have at it. It's fitting. If Merriam-Webster has decided to accept it, it's a recent decision.
No, hon, it's not the only argument. It's just the type that belongs in this thread. I suspect you also use irregardless if you are someone who uses anyways, which is only in use due to situation comedy writers. If you wish to sound ignorant, have at it. It's fitting. If Merriam-Webster has decided to accept it, it's a recent decision.
He probably "could care less."
Last edited by MikeJaquish; 10-11-2014 at 07:45 PM..
Life has taught me that you reap what you sow and it's no one's fault but your own if you sow the wrong things.Interestingly, there is a correlation in my personal life between wealth and liberalism. The friends who have remained the most liberal are the wealthiest. Life has been relatively easy for them. They got good breaks along the way. Those who have become the most conservative are those who had to work hard for what they have. When you think about it, that makes sense. If you see life as being easy you think is should be easy for everyone. If you see it as being hard, you think everyone should have to work too and would resent those who don't put in the effort.
This might be another reason why liberalism might be associated with higher intelligence. The more intelligent you are, the easier life is. The easier life is, the more you think it should be easy for everyone. It stands to reason that people would be more willing to share that which they see as easy to attain. I do find it interesting that the wealthiest people I know are also the most liberal. I have a BIL who has is worth millions and he is the most liberal person I know. I don't think he or his wife ever had a hiccup in their career paths. It was just one promotion after another. They have it all and then some. Interestingly, he is the least intelligent of the 5 children in dh's family but none of the other kids have come anywhere near his level of success. While he did work for what he has, I'd predict that I'd be in the same place he is if I got the breaks he did. He made the right connections to just keep moving up and up and up. What I find really interesting about him is as liberal as he is, he doesn't think he should even help family members find a job. He thinks it's easy to find jobs and easy to get promotions because it was for him. He sympathizes with the poor but not with the struggles of his brothers or sisters or even his own kids. He thinks we all have the same opportunities he had when we don't.
And there it is. These two paragraphs basically say it all. Because, after all is said and done, so much of the liberal vs conservative polarity in the US is really nothing more than class warfare. That's it. Yes, it's usually cloaked in debates of ideology, religion, "family values," work ethic, intelligence, etc, but the truth is that it has little to do with anything beyond socioeconomic class. Simply put, one group feels resentful of what they feel they don't have but what (they perceive) others do. And, in my experience, that first group is often - not always - made up of conservatives.
One form of the class warfare that conservatives wage, routinely involves them accusing liberals of wanting to "steal" from the wealthy. Funnily enough, though, the group that almost always makes this accusation are those conservatives WAY down on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, never the wealthy themselves. This group has always utterly confounded me. They're rarely educated beyond high school, often work in lower-paying occupations, but dutifully vote for George Bush and Mitt Romney.
Consequently, I've come to call this group the Rich-Wannabes-but-Never-Will-Bes. And they are quintessentially American. As a poster on another economics thread brilliantly pointed out recently, in NO other country in the world but the USA do the poor worry endlessly about how the wealthy will manage. Only in America, indeed.
In Ivorytickler's paragraphs above, however, is an example of the second form of class warfare commonly waged by conservatives. The group who wages this form of warfare, I like to call the Bootstrappers, and they're generally a very dissatisfied, disgruntled, self-absorbed bunch. On the one hand, they're contemptuous of those less fortunate than they, such as the working poor. Bootstrappers are strongly opposed to raising the minimum wage, for example, and seem to believe that it's the fault of no one but the working poor that they're poor. They talk endlessly about how they "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps" and how, therefore, everyone can. Because they believe THEY managed to make their lives better, they're often their own favorite role models. Heroes, in fact. Right up there with soldiers, first-response professionals, caretakers. The one quality some Bootstrappers seem to lack, unfortunately, is humility.
On the other hand, they're deeply resentful of those who THEY perceive to be better off than they, economically speaking. And EVERYTHING is economic for Bootstrappers, because, to them, money and material success IS life. Learning for the sake of learning? Nah, waste of time. In fact, anything that has nothing to do with making MORE money or becoming MORE materially successful is pointless to them.
Not surprisingly, then, the people the Bootstrappers most resent, are those better educated than they are. This, it must be noted, is NOT because Bootstrappers so value education. Oh, no. It's because they see that the best educated people in society are often also the most materially successful. Remember, money and material success is what Bootstrappers value and covet. What makes this reality worse for the Bootstrappers, is that those who are best educated are often also liberals. Uppity, liberal know-it-alls. East coast liberal elites or West coast liberal hippies. Ivy-educated, pain-in-the-a$$ liberal intellectuals. No matter which group of liberals it may be, it just doesn't sit right with the Bootstrappers that THOSE liberals are so successful. WHY should those liberals be so successful and have so much? It just isn't right or just.
The irony is that Bootstrappers fail to follow their own self-satisfied advice they love to give to those less well off. They fail to see that those successful liberals might be so successful for a good reason. That perhaps those liberals have intelligence, valuable skill sets (such as excellent interpersonal and communication skills), perseverance, an incredible work ethic, ability to overcome great adversity, and the desire and ability with work with people of all socioeconomic, ethnic, racial, and religious backgrounds. They probably make a conscious effort to be lifelong learners, voracious readers, and to experience different cultures whenever possible. They're also often immigrants or children of immigrants, which makes them highly flexible and adaptable, key characteristics of successful people in today's global economy.
In a nutshell, Bootstrappers are their own worst enemies, forever on the losing end of their self-created and self-perpetuated definition of accomplishment and prosperity. On one hand, they're more successful than those lazy, unfocused poor people (thanks, of course, to their own (perceived) pull-up-their-bootstraps rugged individuality). On the other, they're poorer and less successful than those better educated, collectivist liberal elites. Ultimately, Bootstrappers are caught in an economic purgatory of their own making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
Because if you can't attack the logic of the post, you attack the poster. This type of deflection is a common strategy around here. The logic is if you can make the poster look bad maybe people will discount what the poster says. It's usually evidence of a poor argument on the part of the person calling the other person names.
This, coming from someone who wrote an entire (long) paragraph ranting about her more "successful"(ie. wealthier), liberal BIL who "has it all and then some." I also want to point out that I didn't call MP a name of any kind.
"Life has taught me that you reap what you sow and it's no one's fault but your own if you sow the wrong things." Yes. Perhaps you should listen to your own precepts, hmm?
Last edited by newdixiegirl; 10-11-2014 at 10:31 PM..
-Liberalism is a 'novelty' in human evolution and intelligent people tend to be drawn to novelty (not socially defined novelty, evolutionary novelty).
-less intelligent people tend to conform to tradition, because they have been instructed not to trust their own intelligence.
-their higher intelligence explains why liberals tend to control practically ALL of the institutions with a few exceptions-- notably the world of business.
-extreme conservatism is shown to be positively correlated with the lowest IQs.
-Religiosity has a very high correlation with a low IQ.
Hrm. I am an Ultra-Conservative (I vote Constitution Party) at the polls. I'm a firm believer in Christianity. I'm a Creationist. I believe the entire Bible as literal fact except where it stats it's a parable, etc., and my IQ is around 120, (Above average).
But to answer YOUR question I have to say: 1 Corinthians 1:27 which states: "But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong."
My father, who had an IQ of 140, and a PHD in Mathematics, was politically very conservative. He believed in God (and also in science) but was not a believer in organized religion. I don't believe the results of the study, or at least I don't believe an interpretation that all liberals are more intelligent than all conservatives.
this has empirically been researched and the data found to be relatively valid but not robust- it could be related to educational levels, but not always. I am progressive with an average to slightly above average IQ- there are conservatives smarter then me. Before believing 'Pop Psychology' research more thoroughly. I do not attend church- have weak religious belief's, since the evidence regarding God's existence has not scientifically been proven.
I know plenty of liberals who blindly follow the left.
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.
It's usually evidence of a poor argument on the part of the person calling the other person names. 