PDA

View Full Version : The Brutal Truth between liberals and Conservative people



DB1985
04-06-2011, 05:16 PM
from another forum


cliffs:

Nobel Prize: 54 left, 5 right

Pulitzer Prize: 73 left, 0 right

National Book Award: 20 left, 0 right

Fields Medal: 4 left, 0 right

Turing Award: 8 left, 4 right

Pritzker Prize: 4 left, 0 right

MacArthur “Genius” Fellowship: 201 left, 12 right, 1 libertarian




Hi everyone. "The Intelligent Consensus" is my 26 month study/book that reveals the relationship between intelligence and political inclination. The relationship between intelligence and political inclination has been widely speculated upon. It’s a compelling, and useful, heuristic. But to date, there has been no consensus about the relationship. My book illustrates that society's most intelligent members are overwhelmingly inclined toward political liberalism. The reason lies in the distinction between liberalism and conservatism.

In the book, I illustrate that the differences between liberals and conservatives on each contemporary issue (and presumably each issue in any time period) can be attributed to four broad distinctions between liberals and conservatives:

1) Liberals are more empathetic toward society’s less represented segments (i.e., minorities), such as the poor, blacks, sick, women, handicapped, etc.
2) Conservatives are more likely to embrace the established, such as religion, government, native country, established demographic order, and human nature.
3) Liberals are more averse toward violence.
4) Conservatives are more averse toward change.

These distinctions can be consolidated: Liberals’ aversion toward violence (3) is a function of their being more empathetic toward the potential victims of that violence (1).

Conservatives’ aversion toward change (4) is a function of their being more likely to embrace the established (2). (The prevailing status quo is the established.)

1 and 2 can be consolidated as well: Both reflect liberals’ comparative willingness to be more thoroughly considerate toward the less represented alternative, whether that less represented alternative is a group (as in difference 1) or an idea (as in difference 2).

Society’s most intelligent members are more likely to be liberal because they are more likely to possess both liberal tendencies: They are more likely to be empathetic toward the less represented segments (minorities) because they are more cognizant of the antecedent causes that produce the condition of a particular less represented person or group. And they are more likely to be skeptical of the established (and more likely to consider the alternative to that established) because they are in best position to note inefficiencies in the established.

In the book, among other things, I show how atheists/agnostics and Jews as groups are considerably more intelligent than the median citizen, and how both of these groups are more liberal than the median precisely because they are more intelligent than the median.

I also show the remarkably reliable consistency of the U-shaped curve, in presidential elections, gubernatorial elections, senatorial elections and ballot measures, as well as both nationally and internationally.

Society’s most intelligent members are overwhelmingly liberal by staggering margins, and intellectuals grow ever more liberal with higher standards for what constitutes “intellectual”. In the book, I show the results of voter donation analysis I conducted of the following intellectual award winners:

Nobel Prize: 54 left, 5 right
Pulitzer Prize: 73 left, 0 right
National Book Award: 20 left, 0 right
Fields Medal: 4 left, 0 right
Turing Award: 8 left, 4 right
Pritzker Prize: 4 left, 0 right
MacArthur “Genius” Fellowship: 201 left, 12 right, 1 libertarian

Some may conjecture that it’s just recently that intellectuals have turned so overwhelmingly toward liberalism—a reaction to the unpopular Bush administration—but I show that the left-to-right ratio among the aforementioned intellectual award winners was the exact same as above (17.3 to 1) prior to 2000.

Most of the aforementioned intellectuals were tied to academia, but the results are similar among the winners of intellectual awards who were not connected with academia:

Scripps National Spelling Bee winners: 5 left, 0 right
Putnam Mathematical Fellows: 10 left, 1 libertarian
Jeopardy Tournament Of Champions competitors: 20 left, 5 right, 1 libertarian
World Scrabble Championship competitors: 2 left, 0 right
American Contract Bridge League Hall Of Famers: 4 left, 1 right

As mentioned in the book, these intellectual measures cover all eight of Howard Gardner’s categories of intelligence. And all show an overwhelming liberalism among intellectuals.

I believe these results lend statistical, systematic credence to the liberal ideology. In the 2nd half of the book, I show how intellectuals are more likely than the median to be privy to particular facts and arguments relating to any given issue. That is, intellectuals are more likely to be considerate toward the less represented (segment or alternative) because intellectuals are more likely to know more about, among other things related to any given issue, that less represented. I show eight case study issues, gay marriage, abortion, death penalty, animal treatment, health care, federal budget policy, global warming and foreign policy, and I show how the liberal vote on each of those issues grows among the higher intelligent/educated. And I show the most compelling facts and arguments per issue that intellectuals are more likely to be privy toward that persuade them toward liberalism. On the last four issues in particular, I show how corporate powers have monetary incentive to sway the public debate toward conservatism and against public benefit, and how society’s most intelligent citizens are most likely to see through those effects.

The statistics show that the most intelligent sextile of voters grows ever more likely to be liberal with increased intelligence, which means the intelligent consensus numbers millions of people all over the U.S. and all over the world.

So, are you part of the liberal intelligent consensus?

And, do you know anyone else who’s a part of the intelligent consensus?

LennardiVooDoo
04-06-2011, 05:20 PM
inb4 liberal lies
inb4 liberal propaganda
inb4 liberal bias

BBmisc420196
04-06-2011, 05:25 PM
I'm liberal so do I win?


But srsly......

TL\DR

Salavat23
04-06-2011, 05:27 PM
Funny that they didn't mention statistics of the richest and most financially successful people in the world. Yeah, pretty sure most of that demographic is right leaning.

khergan
04-06-2011, 05:30 PM
TL;DR

Also, you fail at history. Liberal presidents have led us into more wars than conservative presidents. After you failed that, I just ignored the rest of your post.

LennardiVooDoo
04-06-2011, 05:33 PM
Funny that they didn't mention statistics of the richest and most financially successful people in the world. Yeah, pretty sure most of that demographic is right leaning.

They're republican because republicans want low taxes for billionaires and millionaires. Warren Buffet is a very publicly democratic billionaire and even he says that the top 1% is winning the class war.

LennardiVooDoo
04-06-2011, 05:34 PM
TL;DR

Also, you fail at history. Liberal presidents have led us into more wars than conservative presidents. After you failed that, I just ignored the rest of your post.

You're right. We should have just ignored those attacks by Germany in WW1 and Japan in WW2.
Already disproven in other thread, even if you count WW1 and WW2, Republicans have led us into 7/12 wars in US history.

DB1985
04-06-2011, 05:40 PM
Funny that they didn't mention statistics of the richest and most financially successful people in the world. Yeah, pretty sure most of that demographic is right leaning.

Majority of people who make a $100,000+ a year voted for Obama in 2008.

tk217
04-06-2011, 05:41 PM
So, conservatives don't care for awards OP?

And they are silly and vain?

Also Didn't Obama get a nobel prize? For peace? Isn't he waging 3 different combat campaigns currently?

tk217
04-06-2011, 05:42 PM
Majority of people who make a $100,000+ a year voted for Obama in 2008.

Do you have evidence for this claim?

voltio8836
04-06-2011, 05:46 PM
So, conservatives don't care for awards OP?

And they are silly and vain?

Also Didn't Obama get a nobel prize? For peace? Isn't he waging 3 different combat campaigns currently?

lol half those awards are given to you if you accomplish alot regardless of whether you "care for awards" or not.

LennardiVooDoo
04-06-2011, 05:46 PM
So, conservatives don't care for awards OP?

And they are silly and vain?

Also Didn't Obama get a nobel prize? For peace? Isn't he waging 3 different combat campaigns currently?

He won the prize for reducing the nuclear tension and reducing US-Soviet stockpiles. And about those 3 campaigns, 2 of them were started by George W Bush (there's no way he can end it without the senate anyway), and Libya was done to stop a humanitarian massacre such as the one seen in Rwanda.
If anything Obama's action in Libya (btw along with international community), only strengthens his humanitarian argument.

ll ReNeGaDe ll
04-06-2011, 05:46 PM
Considering scientific achievement in academia, and rational thought as it pertains to politics are two different cognitive processes, who the fuk cares? You can be extremely intelligent, and extremely irrational at the same time.

And I haven't even went into the liberal indoctrination on American campuses and college textbooks.

tk217
04-06-2011, 05:48 PM
He won the prize for reducing the nuclear tension and reducing US-Soviet stockpiles. And about those 3 campaigns, 2 of them were started by George W Bush (there's no way he can end it without the senate anyway), and Libya was done to stop a humanitarian massacre such as the one seen in Rwanda.
If anything Obama's action in Libya (btw along with international community), only strengthens his humanitarian argument.

I never heard this ever. EVER. The US chemical/biological weapons decommissioning plants have been going on for the last 10 years. I have first hand knowledge of this.

He could just ****ing leave. It isn't the difficult of a decision - really. There is a government there and it will sustain if it sustains.

If the claims are to stop massacres like Rwanda -- why would he make a statement about safeguarding US interests?

Why isn't he in the Congo or Somalia?


The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Oslo, October 9, 2009

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html

What work did he do?

This confuses the **** out of me. He got for a 'vision.' Not for actually doing something.

betaphaggler
04-06-2011, 06:07 PM
Do you have evidence for this claim?

http://redbluerichpoor.com/blog/2008/11/election-2008-what-really-happened/

In 2008 it showed a reversal that the highest income levels trended toward Obama in 2008, but that you can say there is a certain correlation between the mega rich being liberally inclined in dubious because of the nature of the election itself.

Also if I remember in my stats class the majority of billionaires in the United States donated toward democratic candidates vs republican candidates, but again we concluded it could be a spurious relationship because many billionaires who lean conservative may be less inclined to give charitably; something rich(er) republicans openly admit to in surveys, you can refer to http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/

That this post is surprising I don't really think so, its been known for a long time atheists and intellectuals by IQ trend toward liberalism.

tk217
04-06-2011, 06:10 PM
http://redbluerichpoor.com/blog/2008/11/election-2008-what-really-happened/

In 2008 it showed a reversal that the highest income levels trended toward Obama in 2008, but that you can say there is a certain correlation between the mega rich being liberally inclined in dubious because of the nature of the election itself.

Also if I remember in my stats class the majority of billionaires in the United States donated toward democratic candidates vs republican candidates, but again we concluded it could be a spurious relationship because many billionaires who lean conservative may be less inclined to give charitably, you can refer to http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/


After a quick look at the election results and exit polls (from www.cnn.com), some thoughts:

1. The election was pretty close. Obama won by about 5% of the vote, consistent with the latest polls and consistent with his forecast vote based on forecasts based on the economy.

2. As with previous Republican candidates, McCain did better among the rich than the poor:

I'm still confused. I thought the rich voted more for Obama?

tk217
04-06-2011, 06:13 PM
That this post is surprising I don't really think so, its been known for a long time atheists and intellectuals by IQ trend toward liberalism.

Why did you even add this?

betaphaggler
04-06-2011, 06:13 PM
I'm still confused. I thought the rich voted more for Obama?

If you look at the second chart, it says the "highest-income" surveyed trended toward Obama in 2008.

As to your second post, I thought this was old news, there was a study years ago about how intellectuals and atheists tend to trend liberally.

tk217
04-06-2011, 06:15 PM
If you look at the second chart, it says the "highest-income" surveyed trended toward Obama in 2008.

As to your second post, I thought this was old news, there was a study years ago about how intellectuals and atheists tend to trend liberally.

I understand what the word 'trended' means. It does not mean majority. It does not mean the rich (meaning the majority of rich people) voted for Obama.

The majority of the RICH voted Republican --- as usual.

betaphaggler
04-06-2011, 06:16 PM
I understand what the word 'trended' means. It does not mean majority. It does not mean the rich (meaning the majority of rich people) voted for Obama.

The majority of the RICH voted Republican --- as usual.

That's why I said "mega-rich". If you're referring to just the "rich" on the first chart then yes.

tk217
04-06-2011, 06:18 PM
That's why I said "mega-rich". If you're referring to just the "rich" on the first chart then yes.

Here for irony purposes.

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/2/1/128780122030179475.jpg

TBU720
04-06-2011, 06:18 PM
Conservatives are too busy paying taxes that fund the research that liberals do to win a nobel prize.

tk217
04-06-2011, 06:19 PM
Conservatives are too busy paying taxes that fund the research that liberals do to win a nobel prize.

Pretty much this.

betaphaggler
04-06-2011, 06:20 PM
Here for irony purposes.

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/2/1/128780122030179475.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/3u3aC.png

tts0lid
04-06-2011, 06:24 PM
The average Democrat makes more money than the average Republican, but it's more because of where Democrats and Republicans tend to live than anything else.

Democrats tend to live in urban areas and on the coasts where pay and cost of living are higher.

People in New York and California make more money, on average, than people in Wyoming or Alabama, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are better off.

That being said, in 2008 the majority (52%) of people making over 250K/year voted for Obama.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/how-did-rich-people-vote-and-why/

GnastyGnorc
04-06-2011, 06:25 PM
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b324/PepsiMan34/GrandpaSimpson.gif

TBU720
04-06-2011, 06:27 PM
The average Democrat makes more money than the average Republican, but it's more because of where Democrats and Republicans tend to live than anything else.

Democrats tend to live in urban areas and on the coasts where pay and cost of living are higher.

People in New York and California make more money, on average, than people in Wyoming or Alabama, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are better off.

That being said, in 2008 the majority (52%) of people making over 250K/year voted for Obama.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/how-did-rich-people-vote-and-why/

Yeah. You can't forget that the people living in shacks in the deep south are likely to be conservative.

tk217
04-06-2011, 06:28 PM
The average Democrat makes more money than the average Republican, but it's more because of where Democrats and Republicans tend to live than anything else.

Democrats tend to live in urban areas and on the coasts where pay and cost of living are higher.

People in New York and California make more money, on average, than people in Wyoming or Alabama, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are better off.

That being said, in 2008 the majority (52%) of people making over 250K/year voted for Obama.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/how-did-rich-people-vote-and-why/

So, Beta, does this support your claim either?

betaphaggler
04-06-2011, 06:31 PM
So, Beta, does this support your claim either?

I didn't make any claim, I linked you to a dataset about a widely used election dataset that for one of the few times the "highest-income" surveyed trended toward Obama.

mistaballoonhan
04-06-2011, 06:32 PM
Considering scientific achievement in academia, and rational thought as it pertains to politics are two different cognitive processes, who the fuk cares? You can be extremely intelligent, and extremely irrational at the same time.


True, but I think more stupid people tend to be irrational than intelligent people. Both sides have some crossover, but the trend seems pretty obvious. Not saying that validates the OP, there could be other reasons for the trends, but they are some interesting correlations (if true).



And I haven't even went into the liberal indoctrination on American campuses and college textbooks.

I think it's more that social liberalism is an influence in textbooks. More intelligent people tend to be more tolerant, again in general.


Basically there are two choices I see in the US in recent times:

1. Conservatives: Socially conservative (anti gay, anti muslim, etc). Financially pretty liberal.

2. Liberals: Socially liberal (equal rights, pro tolerance). Financially pretty liberal.

So we get to choose between a turd sandwich, and a turd sandwich with french fries. **** it, might as well get the fries, hopefully they'll get some of the turd sandwich taste out of my mouth.

There is no financially conservative party in the US, so the numbers are misrepresented for intelligent people who actually are financially conservative, but decide they might as well have some fries with their sandwich. Less intelligent people are more likely to think the "conservative" party is actually going to be financially conservative at all, which I have rarely seen to be the case (also they usually hate things they don't know much about, hence gays and muslims).

Just my views as a college kid in TX/10

tk217
04-06-2011, 06:33 PM
I didn't make any claim, I linked you to a dataset about a widely used election dataset that for one of the few times the "highest-income" surveyed trended toward Obama.

Oh my god.

tk217
04-06-2011, 06:35 PM
True, but I think more stupid people tend to be irrational than intelligent people. Both sides have some crossover, but the trend seems pretty obvious. Not saying that validates the OP, there could be other reasons for the trends, but they are some interesting correlations (if true).



I think it's more that social liberalism is an influence in textbooks. More intelligent people tend to be more tolerant, again in general.


Basically there are two choices I see in the US in recent times:

1. Conservatives: Socially conservative (anti gay, anti muslim, etc). Financially pretty liberal.

2. Liberals: Socially liberal (equal rights, pro tolerance). Financially pretty liberal.

So we get to choose between a turd sandwich, and a turd sandwich with french fries. **** it, might as well get the fries, hopefully they'll get some of the turd sandwich taste out of my mouth.

There is no financially conservative party in the US, so the numbers are misrepresented for intelligent people who actually are financially conservative, but decide they might as well have some fries with their turd sandwich. Less intelligent people are more likely to think the "conservative" party is actually going to be financially conservative at all, which I have rarely seen to be the case (also they usually hate things they don't know much about, hence gays and muslims).

Just my views as a college kid in TX/10

Mist - there are actual... liberal-biases in textbooks.

Texas as a state has their own 'special' textbooks written purposefully to get rid of any 'liberal' agenda and make sure it is a conservative one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

betaphaggler
04-06-2011, 06:35 PM
Oh my god.

This is my first statement which was representing the statistical facts about the election data. It's not my opinion but me posting what is in the data for the forum boards.

"In 2008 it showed a reversal that the highest income levels trended toward Obama in 2008, but that you can say there is a certain correlation between the mega rich being liberally inclined in dubious because of the nature of the election itself."

What exactly are you driving at because I'm not following anymore.

TBU720
04-06-2011, 06:36 PM
Mist - there are actual... liberal-biases in textbooks.

Texas as a state has their own 'special' textbooks written purposefully to get rid of any 'liberal' agenda and make sure it is a conservative one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

Examples of so called "liberal bias"?

tk217
04-06-2011, 06:36 PM
That's why I said "mega-rich". If you're referring to just the "rich" on the first chart then yes.

What about this?

mistaballoonhan
04-06-2011, 06:36 PM
Mist - there are actual... liberal-biases in textbooks.

Texas as a state has their own 'special' textbooks written purposefully to get rid of any 'liberal' agenda and make sure it is a conservative one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

Guess I don't get to see them then :P

In what way are they biased? I always assumed the US used pretty similar textbooks everywhere...

betaphaggler
04-06-2011, 06:38 PM
What about this?


By "mega-rich" I referred to the "highest income surveyed" and by "rich" I mean the "rich" surveyed in the data. I still have no idea what you're driving at.

tk217
04-06-2011, 06:38 PM
Examples of so called "liberal bias"?


The conservative members maintain that they are trying to correct what they see as a liberal bias among the teachers who proposed the curriculum. To that end, they made dozens of minor changes aimed at calling into question, among other things, concepts like the separation of church and state and the secular nature of the American Revolution.

“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”

They also included a plank to ensure that students learn about “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.”

Dr. McLeroy, a dentist by training, pushed through a change to the teaching of the civil rights movement to ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the nonviolent approach of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He also made sure that textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported.

“Republicans need a little credit for that,” he said. “I think it’s going to surprise some students.”

Mr. Bradley won approval for an amendment saying students should study “the unintended consequences” of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation. He also won approval for an amendment stressing that Germans and Italians as well as Japanese were interned in the United States during World War II, to counter the idea that the internment of Japanese was motivated by racism.

Other changes seem aimed at tamping down criticism of the right. Conservatives passed one amendment, for instance, requiring that the history of McCarthyism include “how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.” The Venona papers were transcripts of some 3,000 communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the United States.

Liberal biases according to the posting.

tk217
04-06-2011, 06:41 PM
I guess I am confused Beta. I don't see the term Mega-rich in your article... can you explain what that means? I figured it was the 'highest income' bracket shown in that graph but when the other posting was shown it explains that those making 250K+ voted in the majority for Obama.

betaphaggler
04-06-2011, 06:42 PM
I guess I am confused Beta. I don't see the term Mega-rich in your article... can you explain what that means? I figured it was the 'highest income' bracket shown in that graph but when the other posting was shown it explains that those making 250K+ voted in the majority for Obama.

OK fair enough I understand. I didn't import the exact terminology from the article correctly in the second post.

urdaddyishere
04-06-2011, 07:16 PM
Just my views as a college kid in TX/10

Wait until you get out and get a job. A job where you make enough that you don't get a tax refund. I'm sure your views will change when you see how much money the system takes away from you. You have to remember, nearly 50% of Americans don't pay any income taxes, so you can see why they would tend to be more lenient to spend other peoples money on non essential programs. It doesn't effect them and they might get something out of it. We have become a society that rewards people through various programs for being lazy and refusing to inspire ambition by giving free handouts. The people that are successful are never rewarded for being ideal citizens and are just leached off of for their entirety. Sounds backasswards to me.

tk217
04-06-2011, 07:22 PM
Wait until you get out and get a job. A job where you make enough that you don't get a tax refund. I'm sure your views will change when you see how much money the system takes away from you. You have to remember, nearly 50% of Americans don't pay any income taxes, so you can see why they would tend to be more lenient to spend other peoples money on non essential programs. It doesn't effect them and they might get something out of it. We have become a society that rewards people through various programs for being lazy and refusing to inspire ambition by giving free handouts. The people that are successful are never rewarded for being ideal citizens and are just leached off of for their entirety. Sounds backasswards to me.

I pay about 10,000 in taxes a year not including other taxes outside of my direct paycheck.

mistaballoonhan
04-06-2011, 07:34 PM
Wait until you get out and get a job. A job where you make enough that you don't get a tax refund. I'm sure your views will change when you see how much money the system takes away from you. You have to remember, nearly 50% of Americans don't pay any income taxes, so you can see why they would tend to be more lenient to spend other peoples money on non essential programs. It doesn't effect them and they might get something out of it. We have become a society that rewards people through various programs for being lazy and refusing to inspire ambition by giving free handouts. The people that are successful are never rewarded for being ideal citizens and are just leached off of for their entirety. Sounds backasswards to me.

Like I said, neither group is financially conservative. The "conservatives" just act like it so people rally behind them, hell they may even believe it, but they spend the same amount as liberals from what I've seen.

If I can't get financial conservatism either way, I might as well go with the side that doesn't resist the push for gay marriage, or who is far less tolerant in general of other types of people than themselves. It's a huge generalization I know, but I'm just saying there are more of those types in the conservative party than the liberal, they're certainly not all that way though.


Ideal: Socially liberal, financially conservative = 2/2

Realistic Liberal Party: Socially liberal, financially liberal = 1/2

Realistic Conservative Party: Socially conservative, financially liberal = 0/2

If I can't get 2/2, I might as well get 1/2.

tk217
04-06-2011, 07:39 PM
Like I said, neither group is financially conservative. The "conservatives" just act like it so people rally behind them, hell they may even believe it, but they spend the same amount as liberals from what I've seen.

If I can't get financial conservatism either way, I might as well go with the side that doesn't resist the push for gay marriage, or who is far less tolerant in general of other types of people than themselves. It's a huge generalization I know, but I'm just saying there are more of those types in the conservative party than the liberal, they're certainly not all that way though.


Ideal: Socially liberal, financially conservative = 2/2

Realistic Liberal Party: Socially liberal, financially liberal = 1/2

Realistic Conservative Party: Socially conservative, financially liberal = 0/2

If I can't get 2/2, I might as well get 1/2.

To make the claim liberals or conservatives are 'fiscally responsible' would be to attribute fiscally responsible to liberal or conservative.

My ideal would also be socially liberal and financially conservative -- but I'd rather have Libertarians like Ron Paul than Democrats named Anthony Weiner attempting to enforce rules of fiscal responsibility -- not because it is the fiscally responsible thing to do -- but to be an ******* to the opposite party (albeit correct in his stance).

UntamedAn1mal
04-06-2011, 07:55 PM
Because the Nobel Peace Prize is of any actual merit regarding political leaning?

Of course most recipients would be from the Left, a commonality amongst the Left is believing in helping all, disregarding race, gender, religion, skin color, etc. Another "commonality" is redistributing the wealth amongst everyone..

http://listverse.com/2007/10/17/top-10-controversial-nobel-peace-prize-winners/

You should read that too...

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

^This guy earned the Nobel Peace Prize, and fought against Israel for most of his life...

Oh wait?


Mahmoud Zahar, Hamas leader in Gaza, stated in September 2010 that Arafat had instructed Hamas to launch what he termed "military operations" against Israel in 2000 when Arafat felt that negotiations with Israel would not succeed.

I'll be honest with my own personal views, an award recognizing or giving merit about something is bull****. It's a council who chooses who THEY believe deserves it... It's their opinions.. Nobody has the same morality, values, political leanings, or opinion on one subject.

BBmisc420196
04-06-2011, 08:02 PM
Because the Nobel Peace Prize is of any actual merit regarding political leaning?

Of course most recipients would be from the Left, a commonality amongst the Left is believing in helping all, disregarding race, gender, religion, skin color, etc. Another "commonality" is redistributing the wealth amongst everyone..

http://listverse.com/2007/10/17/top-10-controversial-nobel-peace-prize-winners/

You should read that too...

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

^This guy earned the Nobel Peace Prize, and fought against Israel for most of his life...

Oh wait?



I'll be honest with my own personal views, an award recognizing or giving merit about something is bull****. It's a council who chooses who THEY believe deserves it... It's their opinions.. Nobody has the same morality, values, political leanings, or opinion on one subject.

I think claiming outright bullsh!t to all awards is off point. If you have some evidence that the majority of award winners were selected on political bias, then you have a strong point, but I doubt that is the case. Specifically the Nobel peace prize has been a joke IMO. OP listed many different awards, do you really think there isnt something to be said of the statistics he showed?

UntamedAn1mal
04-06-2011, 08:08 PM
I think claiming outright bullsh!t to all awards is off point. If you have some evidence that the majority of award winners were selected on political bias, then you have a strong point, but I doubt that is the case. Specifically the Nobel peace prize has been a joke IMO. OP listed many different awards, do you really think there isnt something to be said of the statistics he showed?

I'm not saying there is or isn't political bias on it.. I don't know enough about the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.

Generally, Liberals are out to keep the world safe, make sure everyone is okay and to help everyone (Last point is Controversial)

Generally, Conservatives believe in Isolationism, prefer State > World, against International Affairs, would rather go to war with someone than try to make peace with some other nation's government threatening them (Last point is also Controversial, the same may apply to Liberalism)

But since the Nobel Peace Prize is rewarding the Nobel Prize based on Peace, then I think a lot of Liberals/Leftists (Libertarian not Authoritarian) could probably apply for the Nobel Prize (If they do something of merit).

I just believe that there are billions of people in this world, with their own different morals, values and opinions. The Nobel Peace Committee probably all have in common a Social Liberal mindset (Again, just a guess, but I predict if I read up each member they'd primarily be Liberal-Leaning Figures).

UntamedAn1mal
04-06-2011, 08:11 PM
With my last point, I'm just thinking that the Nobel Peace Prize shouldn't be overplayed as it is today. Everyone looks at it like it's a "Beacon of Purity".

Rdez
04-06-2011, 08:13 PM
I think the take-away from all of this 'research' is that liberals like to circle-jerk en masse then pat themselves on the back, metaphorically speaking of course.

MonkeyC
04-06-2011, 08:14 PM
http://cdn.hometheaterforum.com/c/cf/cfb7ba7d_htf_imgcache_38390.jpeg

urdaddyishere
04-06-2011, 08:24 PM
Like I said, neither group is financially conservative. The "conservatives" just act like it so people rally behind them, hell they may even believe it, but they spend the same amount as liberals from what I've seen.

If I can't get financial conservatism either way, I might as well go with the side that doesn't resist the push for gay marriage, or who is far less tolerant in general of other types of people than themselves. It's a huge generalization I know, but I'm just saying there are more of those types in the conservative party than the liberal, they're certainly not all that way though.

I understand where your coming from choosing the lesser of two evils to meet your ideals. I'm just trying to point out that once a larger sum of your hard earned check is going into the govt, the more you might side with finances over social issues. I personally don't care one way or the other about gays or abortion. I just don't feel strongly about either. I guess I'm just insensitive and selfish to an extent.

Pump that iron!
04-07-2011, 01:53 AM
It's true OP - good work you are doing. Keep it up - tell us when the book comes out and I will buy a copy.

ne12o
04-07-2011, 03:09 AM
True, but I think more stupid people tend to be irrational than intelligent people. Both sides have some crossover, but the trend seems pretty obvious. Not saying that validates the OP, there could be other reasons for the trends, but they are some interesting correlations (if true).



I think it's more that social liberalism is an influence in textbooks. More intelligent people tend to be more tolerant, again in general.


Basically there are two choices I see in the US in recent times:

1. Conservatives: Socially conservative (anti gay, anti muslim, etc). Financially pretty liberal.

2. Liberals: Socially liberal (equal rights, pro tolerance). Financially pretty liberal.

So we get to choose between a turd sandwich, and a turd sandwich with french fries. **** it, might as well get the fries, hopefully they'll get some of the turd sandwich taste out of my mouth.

There is no financially conservative party in the US, so the numbers are misrepresented for intelligent people who actually are financially conservative, but decide they might as well have some fries with their sandwich. Less intelligent people are more likely to think the "conservative" party is actually going to be financially conservative at all, which I have rarely seen to be the case (also they usually hate things they don't know much about, hence gays and muslims).

Just my views as a college kid in TX/10

dumbest post of the year award

wh1terh1no
04-07-2011, 04:45 AM
Hahahaha, wtf. I knew right wingers were just a bunch of greedy little ignorant kunts.
Obviously us left wingers are smarter and see the world for how it is.

But wtf, I didn't realise they were THAT retarded.

Man 54 wins our side, 5 theirs. Jesus man, that really shows just how ignorant and pathetic these people are. Hahaha.

Typical right winger: absolute ****ing moron. 80% of the people that vote right wing parties DON'T EVEN BENEFIT from their policies. Just some dumbass working a dead end job. Hates who ever is in power, doesn't even have a clue what they're doing.

Probably most of the right wingers on this forum haha. Says a lot.

John$Galt
04-07-2011, 05:04 AM
Funny thing is, since whoever will be grading your paper will almost definitely be liberal, your vacuous "arguments" will be ignored, and you will be given an A.

UntamedAn1mal
04-07-2011, 05:36 AM
Hahahaha, wtf. I knew right wingers were just a bunch of greedy little ignorant kunts.
Obviously us left wingers are smarter and see the world for how it is.

But wtf, I didn't realise they were THAT retarded.

Man 54 wins our side, 5 theirs. Jesus man, that really shows just how ignorant and pathetic these people are. Hahaha.

Typical right winger: absolute ****ing moron. 80% of the people that vote right wing parties DON'T EVEN BENEFIT from their policies. Just some dumbass working a dead end job. Hates who ever is in power, doesn't even have a clue what they're doing.

Probably most of the right wingers on this forum haha. Says a lot.

http://trollcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/attacking_troll_trollcat.jpg

mistaballoonhan
04-07-2011, 06:34 AM
dumbest post of the year award

Care to elaborate? I'm certainly open to new ideas. I haven't been interested in politics for too long, so it's possible I'm pretty ignorant on the subject.



I understand where your coming from choosing the lesser of two evils to meet your ideals. I'm just trying to point out that once a larger sum of your hard earned check is going into the govt, the more you might side with finances over social issues. I personally don't care one way or the other about gays or abortion. I just don't feel strongly about either. I guess I'm just insensitive and selfish to an extent.

And if I saw any real difference in financial issues I might consider that.

Do you have any evidence republicans actually spend less than democrats, or are you just going by what they say?

JB05
04-07-2011, 06:35 AM
Your original post claimed that liberals were more averse to violence. Meanwhile, Democrat presidents have gotten us into the Civil War (Southern Democrats founded the Confederate government and fired first shots on Union forces), WWI (Woodrow Wilson), WWII (FDR), Kosovo (Clinton) and recently, Libya. Meanwhile, ecoterrorists cause havoc frequently, and an Obama-obsessed professor at the University of Alabama shoots her colleagues, and it's hardly reported. Our own warmongering president has made comments about "bringing a knife to a gun fight." Funny how the media only reports about non-existent Tea Party violence (notably, Clinton's NYT op-ed) and the apolitical pothead who shot a Dem in Arizona. Hows that for bias? Facts > generalizations

LennardiVooDoo
04-07-2011, 06:41 AM
Your original post claimed that liberals were more averse to violence. Meanwhile, Democrat presidents have gotten us into the Civil War (Southern Democrats founded the Confederate government and fired first shots on Union forces), WWI (Woodrow Wilson), WWII (FDR), Kosovo (Clinton) and recently, Libya. Meanwhile, ecoterrorists cause havoc frequently, and an Obama-obsessed professor at the University of Alabama shoots her colleagues, and it's hardly reported. Our own warmongering president has made comments about "bringing a knife to a gun fight." Funny how the media only reports about non-existent Tea Party violence (notably, Clinton's NYT op-ed) and the apolitical pothead who shot a Dem in Arizona. Hows that for bias? Facts > generalizations

Lol ok brah.

nitr0x2
04-07-2011, 06:48 AM
Your original post claimed that liberals were more averse to violence. Meanwhile, Democrat presidents have gotten us into the Civil War (Southern Democrats founded the Confederate government and fired first shots on Union forces), WWI (Woodrow Wilson), WWII (FDR), Kosovo (Clinton) and recently, Libya. Meanwhile, ecoterrorists cause havoc frequently, and an Obama-obsessed professor at the University of Alabama shoots her colleagues, and it's hardly reported. Our own warmongering president has made comments about "bringing a knife to a gun fight." Funny how the media only reports about non-existent Tea Party violence (notably, Clinton's NYT op-ed) and the apolitical pothead who shot a Dem in Arizona. Hows that for bias? Facts > generalizations

Democrats in the 1800s are not the same thing as democrats today

and lol @ including WWII in a list of wars a president has gotten us into. Ya we totally instigated that sh!t, right?

BFast55
04-07-2011, 07:01 AM
It is more likely that conservatives tend to get careers after college instead of staying in the academic system. That is why most college systems are liberal. Hence fewer conservatives win academic prizes, combined with a known media and organizational bias towards liberals, is it really no surprise that few conservatives have been awarded “prizes” by the various academic bureaucracies.

Plus it is a degrading with respect to the Nobel prize to quantify the winners into liberal/conservative no? I bet the vast majority of them really have no public political leanings, yet they are counted as “liberal” anyways.

Liberals think of themselves as being are more apathetic, when it comes down to actually helping others, conservatives do more to help.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household

JB05
04-07-2011, 07:03 AM
Democrats in the 1800s are not the same thing as democrats today

and lol @ including WWII in a list of wars a president has gotten us into. Ya we totally instigated that sh!t, right?

Oh ok, Whats the timeline we're allowed to debate here? Can we only criticize Dems up to 1976? 1960? 1940? 1910? The Democrat party fired the first shots of the Civil War. They also opposed Civil Rights and interred Japanese citizens during WWII. This is indisputable. Own it. You're not the benevelont party you'd like to think you are.

SteelSS
04-07-2011, 07:04 AM
Your original post claimed that liberals were more averse to violence. Meanwhile, Democrat presidents have gotten us into the Civil War (Southern Democrats founded the Confederate government and fired first shots on Union forces), WWI (Woodrow Wilson), WWII (FDR), Kosovo (Clinton) and recently, Libya. Meanwhile, ecoterrorists cause havoc frequently, and an Obama-obsessed professor at the University of Alabama shoots her colleagues, and it's hardly reported. Our own warmongering president has made comments about "bringing a knife to a gun fight." Funny how the media only reports about non-existent Tea Party violence (notably, Clinton's NYT op-ed) and the apolitical pothead who shot a Dem in Arizona. Hows that for bias? Facts > generalizations

Jesus christ. What else can be said?

Sodao
04-07-2011, 08:56 AM
Oh ok, Whats the timeline we're allowed to debate here? Can we only criticize Dems up to 1976? 1960? 1940? 1910? The Democrat party fired the first shots of the Civil War. They also opposed Civil Rights and interred Japanese citizens during WWII. This is indisputable. Own it. You're not the benevelont party you'd like to think you are.

well you can start by criticizing modern democrats seeing that they aren't even remotely similar. i mean MLK was a republican ffs, do you seriously think republicans these days would have the same view as him? NOPE.

Mfreemanpwnzyou
04-07-2011, 09:17 AM
You're right. We should have just ignored those attacks by Germany in WW1 and Japan in WW2.
Already disproven in other thread, even if you count WW1 and WW2, Republicans have led us into 7/12 wars in US history.

Were you born and raised in the US and just moved to Aus. or what? Your posts and location confuse me sometimes.

And as for the thread, I honestly draw no distinctions between the two and if other people start to do the same and work toward the same goal, then the country will be prosperous. Or is it the competition that drives change? That same competition that will affect thousands of people tomorrow? That's only in an ideal world, though. Guy can dream.

ll ReNeGaDe ll
04-07-2011, 02:07 PM
True, but I think more stupid people tend to be irrational than intelligent people. Both sides have some crossover, but the trend seems pretty obvious. Not saying that validates the OP, there could be other reasons for the trends, but they are some interesting correlations (if true).

Probably true, but there is no shortage of brilliant-irrational people.


I think it's more that social liberalism is an influence in textbooks. More intelligent people tend to be more tolerant, again in general.


Basically there are two choices I see in the US in recent times:

1. Conservatives: Socially conservative (anti gay, anti muslim, etc). Financially pretty liberal.

2. Liberals: Socially liberal (equal rights, pro tolerance). Financially pretty liberal.

So we get to choose between a turd sandwich, and a turd sandwich with french fries. **** it, might as well get the fries, hopefully they'll get some of the turd sandwich taste out of my mouth.

There is no financially conservative party in the US, so the numbers are misrepresented for intelligent people who actually are financially conservative, but decide they might as well have some fries with their sandwich. Less intelligent people are more likely to think the "conservative" party is actually going to be financially conservative at all, which I have rarely seen to be the case (also they usually hate things they don't know much about, hence gays and muslims).

Just my views as a college kid in TX/10

You're confusing tolerance with political-liberalism, and tolerance with blatant indoctrination on college campuses and textbooks.

Example: My sociology textbook declared legitimate warfare to be equal to terrorism. It stated this as a fact. There are plenty of more examples of liberal nonsense passed off as education in college. Thus people become "educated," and indoctrinated into liberal ideas.

BFast55
04-07-2011, 02:09 PM
well you can start by criticizing modern democrats seeing that they aren't even remotely similar. i mean MLK was a republican ffs, do you seriously think republicans these days would have the same view as him? NOPE.
If you believe that modern Republicans would oppose MLK then you are a partisan sheep. srs.

Sodao
04-07-2011, 02:19 PM
If you believe that modern Republicans would oppose MLK then you are a partisan sheep. srs.

if civil rights were delayed til now hypothetically, todays republicans would in no way be supportive. im a realist, you are a sheep.

tts0lid
04-07-2011, 02:36 PM
If you believe that modern Republicans would oppose MLK then you are a partisan sheep. srs.

i'm sure it depends on what part of the country you were talking about... someone just did a poll in mississippi where 46% of registered republicans said interracial marriage should be illegal. 14% were unsure.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MS_0407915.pdf

mistaballoonhan
04-07-2011, 03:54 PM
Probably true, but there is no shortage of brilliant-irrational people.



You're confusing tolerance with political-liberalism, and tolerance with blatant indoctrination on college campuses and textbooks.

Example: My sociology textbook declared legitimate warfare to be equal to terrorism. It stated this as a fact. There are plenty of more examples of liberal nonsense passed off as education in college. Thus people become "educated," and indoctrinated into liberal ideas.

As I said, being in TX I guess I avoided the biased textbooks.

I could see comparing terrorism to war in a sociology class. Stating it as fact is a bit over the top though. I mean we did drop an atom bomb on hundreds of thousands of civilians (military as well to be fair) in WWII, that's about as terrifying as it gets.

I don't guess you still have the textbook? Forgive me for not totally believing they stated it as cut and dry as you make it sound :P. Maybe they did, but I just find it hard to believe (this is the internet after all).

kratosbrah
04-07-2011, 04:20 PM
The difference between Leftists and Rightists is that Leftists are much better at deluding themselves than Rightists into thinking they're something that they aren't.

hqa
04-07-2011, 05:10 PM
I thought the truth was is that liberal and conservative are just a labels that people use to classify all of the ideas from a certain person instead of looking at them independently.

nutsy54
04-07-2011, 05:16 PM
Nobel Prize: 54 left, 5 right All that "proves" is that the folks who make the Nobel decisions have a left-leaning agenda.

BRB - Awarding a Nobel Peace Prize to a President who's first action in office was to send 17,000 additional troops into combat (and then followed up, a few months after receiving the award, with another 30,000 troops). But he really deserved that Nobel, since everyone Hopes he'll conduct less warmongering in the future :rolleyes:

ll ReNeGaDe ll
04-07-2011, 05:20 PM
As I said, being in TX I guess I avoided the biased textbooks.

Or you didn't spot the bias when it came across you.




Terrorism is a tactic which may or may not be present during a war. Therefore, to say war=terrorism is in no way even a remotely plausible notion unless you're a complete retard. It makes no logical sense what so ever.

[quote]I don't guess you still have the textbook? Forgive me for not totally believing they stated it as cut and dry as you make it sound :P. Maybe they did, but I just find it hard to believe (this is the internet after all).

No I do not have the textbook, as it was 4 years ago. Sorry brah. You can open a sociology book and find other neat things. Example: Women are oppressed in the American household. Even when men don't pressure them to iron their shirts, if they leave the house wearing an unironed shirt, the woman feels guilty and therefore is oppressed.

Srs.

Don't believe me, just take sociology.

mistaballoonhan
04-07-2011, 05:47 PM
Or you didn't spot the bias when it came across you.

[quoteI could see comparing terrorism to war in a sociology class. Stating it as fact is a bit over the top though. I mean we did drop an atom bomb on hundreds of thousands of civilians (military as well to be fair) in WWII, that's about as terrifying as it gets

Terrorism is a tactic which may or may not be present during a war. Therefore, to say war=terrorism is in no way even a remotely plausible notion unless you're a complete retard. It makes no logical sense what so ever.

No I do not have the textbook, as it was 4 years ago. Sorry brah. You can open a sociology book and find other neat things. Example: Women are oppressed in the American household. Even when men don't pressure them to iron their shirts, if they leave the house wearing an unironed shirt, the woman feels guilty and therefore is oppressed.

Srs.

Don't believe me, just take sociology.

I did take sociology, and I remember nothing about war=terrorism, or women are always oppressed unless they are working. They might have made statements about it, but it wasn't as anywhere near as explicit or cut and dry as you've made it out to be.

So yeah it's possible you got a cruddy book, but I don't recall either of those things from my class.

correll28
04-07-2011, 05:51 PM
this doesnt mean ****. liberals win more prizes because they seek change, while conservatives seek to keep what is there. there i no award for that. prizes are irrelevant.

NeoKantian
04-07-2011, 07:31 PM
Example: My sociology textbook declared legitimate warfare to be equal to terrorism. It stated this as a fact. There are plenty of more examples of liberal nonsense passed off as education in college. Thus people become "educated," and indoctrinated into liberal ideas.
Right...the old "my sociology textbook several years ago blah blah blah..."


I did take sociology, and I remember nothing about war=terrorism, or women are always oppressed unless they are working. They might have made statements about it, but it wasn't as anywhere near as explicit or cut and dry as you've made it out to be.

So yeah it's possible you got a cruddy book, but I don't recall either of those things from my class.
He's trollin' brah.

The conservative opposition to "liberal bias" within the university is more so an opposition to the university itself. The very core of a university is critical analysis which often involves analyzing the habits and customs of society or culture which conservatives revere as sacred.

ll ReNeGaDe ll
04-07-2011, 09:56 PM
I did take sociology, and I remember nothing about war=terrorism, or women are always oppressed unless they are working. They might have made statements about it, but it wasn't as anywhere near as explicit or cut and dry as you've made it out to be.

So yeah it's possible you got a cruddy book, but I don't recall either of those things from my class.

I was a sociology minor. It wasn't just one book. And it wasn't just sociology. Also, I'm sure I can find lots of biases in your sociology book.

Check the chapter where they discuss income inequality between genders. Notice how they don't discuss its because men work more hours, are more likely to stay at the same job as a woman, and a whole lot of other factors discussed in various studies that disprove the notion of gender income discrimination. They're not discussing that in your book, because they don't want you to know about it. Like I said, you think you're getting an education (and you are to an extent), but you're also being indoctrinated.


Right...the old "my sociology textbook several years ago blah blah blah...".

Except that I have no reason to be biased, as I'm not a conservative (although I'm sure some liberals would consider me one). In fact, you can search my posts for "conservative" "conservatives" "republican" "republicans" and you will find some hostile comments from me made toward Republicans.

Another thing any psychology major will tell you is they were taught that men are socially conditioned to be masculine while women are socially conditioned to be feminine, while there is virtually no support for this in the research literature.

Pump that iron!
04-08-2011, 01:59 AM
Your original post claimed that liberals were more averse to violence. Meanwhile, Democrat presidents have gotten us into the Civil War (Southern Democrats founded the Confederate government and fired first shots on Union forces), WWI (Woodrow Wilson), WWII (FDR), Kosovo (Clinton) and recently, Libya. Meanwhile, ecoterrorists cause havoc frequently, and an Obama-obsessed professor at the University of Alabama shoots her colleagues, and it's hardly reported. Our own warmongering president has made comments about "bringing a knife to a gun fight." Funny how the media only reports about non-existent Tea Party violence (notably, Clinton's NYT op-ed) and the apolitical pothead who shot a Dem in Arizona. Hows that for bias? Facts > generalizations

Cool story bruh...how does that make conservatives, on average, smarter than liberals again? Oh wait...your post doesn't even attempt to field that question which after all, is the reason why this thread was created. This is a reading comprehension problem on your part lol.

kel_varnsen
04-08-2011, 04:06 AM
Funny that they didn't mention statistics of the richest and most financially successful people in the world. Yeah, pretty sure most of that demographic is right leaning.

i thought a majority of the richest people voted for obama in the last election? it is also an empirical fact that a large majority of scientists are left leaning.

anyways, i don't know if it is an issue with intelligence, but left leaning people are more "open to experience" and "tolerate ambiguity" better than right leaning people. that could possibly explain why the "brilliant minds" are left leaning. they are more curious about the world around us.

BFast55
04-08-2011, 05:33 AM
if civil rights were delayed til now hypothetically, todays republicans would in no way be supportive. im a realist, you are a sheep.
I have no doubt that you want that to be true. Otherwise the democrats would have to come back on decades of racial politics.

BFast55
04-08-2011, 05:49 AM
i'm sure it depends on what part of the country you were talking about... someone just did a poll in mississippi where 46% of registered republicans said interracial marriage should be illegal. 14% were unsure.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MS_0407915.pdf

It is obvious you just read the summary and not the poll itself otherwise you wouldn't be trying to claim that 46% of republicans are against interracial marriages.

Mississippi is probably the most racist part of the country, yet of the 400 "hardcore republicans" there was still not a majority that is condemning interracial marriage. Again, you just read the summary, if you read the cross tabs farther down, your point is even more moot as it suggests that mainstream southern republicans are in favor of allowing interracial marriages.

JB05
04-08-2011, 07:14 AM
if civil rights were delayed til now hypothetically, todays republicans would in no way be supportive. im a realist, you are a sheep.

You mean the party that stands for fundamental, individual rights (but NOT favoritism/affirmative action)? The party that fought to give urban children access to quality charter schools over the objections of the NAACP and other liberal groups? Besides, you're ignoring the diversity of the Republican party. I'm sure Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas and Nikki Haley would really oppose MLK, huh? You're trying to conflate the GOP with the KKK and paint it as some whites-only club. Once again, fact proves you wrong. FoxNews is about as diverse as MSNBC ffs! Time to go back to the dailykos and formulate a different anti-Republican narrative.

Sodao
04-08-2011, 08:36 AM
You mean the party that stands for fundamental, individual rights (but NOT favoritism/affirmative action)? The party that fought to give urban children access to quality charter schools over the objections of the NAACP and other liberal groups? Besides, you're ignoring the diversity of the Republican party. I'm sure Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas and Nikki Haley would really oppose MLK, huh? You're trying to conflate the GOP with the KKK and paint it as some whites-only club. Once again, fact proves you wrong. FoxNews is about as diverse as MSNBC ffs! Time to go back to the dailykos and formulate a different anti-Republican narrative.

so basically youre saying that because of things that only happened because of the civil rights movement that hypothetically didnt happen yet, they would support the civil rights movement? nice.

thanks for the negs bfast, it must suck when i point out a flaw in this argument.

The Great Gazoo
04-08-2011, 09:38 AM
I thought the truth was is that liberal and conservative are just a labels that people use to classify all of the ideas from a certain person instead of looking at them independently.


This.

It causes both sides to entrench and pretty much ignore critical thinking; so much time/effort is spent on maintaining the political polarity there is no time/effort to actually dig in & solve national problems. Future historians will likely blame this politically manufactured dichotomy for the demise of the American empire.

kel_varnsen
04-08-2011, 11:06 AM
This.

It causes both sides to entrench and pretty much ignore critical thinking; so much time/effort is spent on maintaining the political polarity there is no time/effort to actually dig in & solve national problems. Future historians will likely blame this politically manufactured dichotomy for the demise of the American empire.

i know it's the cool thing to be "independent" and look at issues on their own merit, but the fact is there is a reason labels such as liberal and conservative exist. liberal and conservative viewpoints and policies, respectively, are tied together through underlying assumptions and ideas regarding human nature and the world around us. they are not randomly and blindly thrown together. there is a internal consistency within each political ideology.

betaphaggler
04-08-2011, 11:09 AM
i know it's the cool thing to be "independent" and look at issues on their own merit, but the fact is there is a reason labels such as liberal and conservative exist. liberal and conservative viewpoints and policies, respectively, are tied together through underlying assumptions and ideas regarding human nature and the world around us. they are not randomly and blindly thrown together. there is a internal consistency within each political ideology.

Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill just got up from their grave to say "Thank you for clearing that up for us"

inb4 Burke and Paine zombie fight

ZenBowman
04-08-2011, 11:10 AM
This.

It causes both sides to entrench and pretty much ignore critical thinking; so much time/effort is spent on maintaining the political polarity there is no time/effort to actually dig in & solve national problems. Future historians will likely blame this politically manufactured dichotomy for the demise of the American empire.

Try going one day without using labels. Remember, all nouns are labels. So are adjectives. So please go ahead, try and describe things without them.

jafomofo
04-08-2011, 11:48 AM
If you believe that modern Republicans would oppose MLK then you are a partisan sheep. srs.

do you mean the party leaders or the constituency? because if you mean the latter...you live in a fantasy world.

The Great Gazoo
04-08-2011, 03:22 PM
i know it's the cool thing to be "independent" and look at issues on their own merit, but the fact is there is a reason labels such as liberal and conservative exist. liberal and conservative viewpoints and policies, respectively, are tied together through underlying assumptions and ideas regarding human nature and the world around us. they are not randomly and blindly thrown together. there is a internal consistency within each political ideology.


I agree completely, there is an internal consistency in each ideology's worldview. However, put simply, the problem lies in the fact that each side thinks theirs is the ONLY right one.

stoli6046316565
04-08-2011, 03:52 PM
Funny that they didn't mention statistics of the richest and most financially successful people in the world. Yeah, pretty sure most of that demographic is right leaning.

No, I don't think so, just the greedy ones who don't have the self-confidence to maintain that social standing without governments who cater to the corporations they slave themselves to.

In general, celebrities, scientists, bill gates, warren buffet? All on the left.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

For me, the embodiment of this "does understanding/applying scientific principles affect your ideology" (the assumption being understanding peer review, credibility, bias leads to being liberal) is this:

http://images1.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/6086270/Tide-goes-in-Tide-goes-out-Never-a-miscommunication.jpg?imageSize=Medium&generatorName=Bill-O-Reilly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BCipg71LbI&feature=player_detailpage#t=118s

Are you ****ing joking? He doesn't think science can explain the tide going in then out?
http://i.imgur.com/sGvCD.jpg
Even pothead non-science majors like myself can figure that out..




Look, to really understand this, compare the reaction of the talking heads supporters when they do something anti-science.. remember when Bill Maher thought it was a good idea to criticize vaccines? I stopped watching his show, personally, as it greatly reduced his credibility for me. Not everyone did, but nearly everyone attacked him on that principle, and most were willing to continue watching for his insight into other issues, but maintained their opposition to him on that issue. That was a rare, exceptional example.. but that kind of ignorance shows up every day with these right wing talking heads who really are experts in showmanship and partisanship, rather than actually looking to understand how the world around them works.

The Great Gazoo
04-08-2011, 04:12 PM
Try going one day without using labels. Remember, all nouns are labels. So are adjectives. So please go ahead, try and describe things without them.

I'm not arguing labels. I'm arguing that adherence to blind ideology, regardless of label, is a bad thing.

LennardiVooDoo
04-08-2011, 04:55 PM
No, I don't think so, just the greedy ones who don't have the self-confidence to maintain that social standing without governments who cater to the corporations they slave themselves to.

In general, celebrities, scientists, bill gates, warren buffet? All on the left.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece


For me, the embodiment of this "does understanding/applying scientific principles affect your ideology" (the assumption being understanding peer review, credibility, bias leads to being liberal) is this:

http://images1.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/6086270/Tide-goes-in-Tide-goes-out-Never-a-miscommunication.jpg?imageSize=Medium&generatorName=Bill-O-Reilly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BCipg71LbI&feature=player_detailpage#t=118s

Are you ****ing joking? He doesn't think science can explain the tide going in then out?
http://i.imgur.com/sGvCD.jpg
Even pothead non-science majors like myself can figure that out..




Look, to really understand this, compare the reaction of the talking heads supporters when they do something anti-science.. remember when Bill Maher thought it was a good idea to criticize vaccines? I stopped watching his show, personally, as it greatly reduced his credibility for me. Not everyone did, but nearly everyone attacked him on that principle, and most were willing to continue watching for his insight into other issues, but maintained their opposition to him on that issue. That was a rare, exceptional example.. but that kind of ignorance shows up every day with these right wing talking heads who really are experts in showmanship and partisanship, rather than actually looking to understand how the world around them works.

Indeed, but how did the moon get there.
You can't explain that.

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/13/75378-TrollFace.png

stoli6046316565
04-09-2011, 01:22 AM
Indeed, but how did the moon get there.
You can't explain that.

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/13/75378-TrollFace.png

I'm pretty sure there's a theory for that.

But it's besides the point, he didn't say it.

BartPimpson
04-09-2011, 03:17 AM
Funny that they didn't mention statistics of the richest and most financially successful people in the world. Yeah, pretty sure most of that demographic is right leaning.

Yeah. Intellectuals tend to be liberal. Businessmen tend to be conservative.

Let's not get too crazy about the wonders of the college system. They've given us ideas like communism and anarchism.

LennardiVooDoo
04-09-2011, 03:19 AM
I'm pretty sure there's a theory for that.

But it's besides the point, he didn't say it.

Yah dude, I was joking. The moon's creation is easily explained with the current model of the universe.