alternet.org— There is plenty of research showing that low general intelligence in childhood predicts greater prejudice towards people of different ethnicity or sexuality in adulthood.
Feb 12, 2012View in Crawl 4
This quote says it all. "Don't take my word for it. Listen to what two former Republican ideologues, David Frum and Mike Lofgren, have been saying. Frum warns that "conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics". The result is a "shift to ever more extreme, ever more fantasy-based ideology" which has "ominous real-world consequences for American society".
Modern day conservatives honestly live in an alternative universe...
"Modern day conservatives honestly live in an alternative universe..."
You can see evidence of this on this site alone. Remember yesterday when Norman was claiming that gays already had equal marriage rights in the US? It's so far from the truth it's ridiculous, yet he repeated it over and over as if he was trying to reassure himself that his invented reality was real.
Hi mtown. There is a lot of evidence here, you are absolutely correct.
As for that pants load norman, i dont even bother to read most of what he regurgitates on here. Most of what the self professed Digg PAIDtriots post here is verbatim modern conservative talking points, if not simple name calling. Not that they have the market cornered there, but ya:-)
Not quite.. Because those denying global warming use propaganda and delay action to keep atmosphere from entering a feedback loop involving release of naturally sequestered carbon which can end discussion by force of temperature increase on all Earth's environmental systems.
Effectively the damage is done and is just about set in stone due to destruction of Resolution at Bali, Cop13 seeking action plan engaged by 2012.. Fox engaged in destruction of news coverage of Copenhagen Summit Cop15 and the deliberate spreading of doubt where there was none and now it may be too late to stop Earth from exceeding 2C temperature rise with certain consequence.
The action of the great unwashed masses of brainwashed fools won't undo the consequence of the harm done now.
The people "denying" that the warmest alarmists have any case to make actually show trumped up results from your alarmist charlatan "scientists" and real data from what the earth is actually doing.
History shows cyclical temprature means, which we're currently on trend with.
We had a 'low' global mean in the early 1800's.....wouldnt that indicate we're on a general upswing currently?
current monitoring data only takes up about 200 years of 4.5 billion in Weather on Earth, any extrapolation is inherently inaccurate.
I take that Basket, and say: "Global Temps historically swing up and down on different time intervals, from a few hundred to a few thousand."
You take your data, from Parking lot Thermometers and about 50 years of accurate instruments.....
.......
And you say, without question - MAN WARMED THE WORLD< THEREFORE TAX EVERYONE
Basically, while both sides look at accurate data.....only the Liberal Climate Zealots are stupid enough to say "The Other Data Is Wrong". Biased, unscientific liars.
@elcalrissian - you show little knowledge of science data gathering and analysis. It is more than 200 years of instrument data - there are geological data, ice-core and tree-ring and other data sources to be studied. Yes, we are on a natural upswing (and there are downswing periods) in a general warming trend that started with the end of the last ice age. What the data shows is that current trends include radical short-term shifts from low to high temps, extreme weather events, and shifts of wind and water currents in unprecedented levels. And since over 95% of climate scientists, oceanographers, biologists, and other relevant scientists agree, along with NASA, the Pentagon, all major university science departments, the National Atmospherics and Meteorological Administration, and European, Australian, and other international counterparts all agree, your claim of "liberal climate change zealots" is more than a bit misleading. BTW, once you use the term "liberal" as a pejorative, you lose all intellectual credibility and are exposed as just another right-wing tool.
Im glad you pointed out the timescale I inferred in my earlier post.
Last ice age to now is about, oh...10,000 yrs. 200 of hardcore, actual data.
I'd hope you concede, say, 25 years of paved surfaces covering substantial areas, especially urban areas? Just the physical concrete, a slab lying there, absorbing and reflecting (high albetio); and the People, living beings, living in concetrated urban areas throughout the world. Collected heat in the People, the concrete.
The cities, just siting there with Zero power, create global warming through Concrete and People.
- How much of that are you assuming CO2 is doing now?
Bogs, undersea natural gas fissures, volcanic activity......
even if it's 5% of global warming, CO2 the other 95%.....
Its all just 200 years over 10,000....I trust the Geologic records.
We heat the Earth. We also buy Whole Foods and Priuses. Capitalism has an Incentive to be Green. US. Theres a market for Solar, wind, and we're exploiting it....kinda. The EPA and Government is good in small doses, but today it's a deluge.
The government isnt good at exploiting anything other than it's people. Let Business and Capitalism create the Green Energy of tomorrow.
"yep, they will cling to the smallest shred of truth they can manipulate that fits their view and repeat over and over and over."
It's really quite pathetic isn't it? Just how many times does atomheartmother have to post a link to a blog that he claims disputes this article? Posting it more than once just seems desperate.
What? they absolutely equal marriage rights in the US.
Any gay man has exactly the same right to marry a woman that I do.
Same rights across the board.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
You progressed into multiple levels of free thought there, explaining that there COULD be some lee-way?
You MUST Be a Conservative, liberals I know cant comprehend anything not said by Rachel Maddow.
So, you're saying, for example, I can be a pot smoking, hybrid driving, commune living, charity giving person, who wants to stop illegal immigration, see the positive affect of private welfare, and stop income based taxation?
Why would it? I fully support gay marriage and I am a conservative. There are MANY other conservatives that feel the same way. But we are also fiscally prudent, where you are not... only conservatives are acting rationally and with compassion at this point, instead of wholly partisan as you are (since you cannot even comprehend someone could have mixed positions! That's like DESEGREGATION of thought and cannot be tolerated!)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Exactly. Sign me up for the fiscal conservative side. Right now, Santorum is upholding the Social side and I suppose Romney goes in the Fiscal Category. Hard to get excited over either. But it does show the stark divide in the Republican party.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Umm, yeah, I think everything stated here is true about both sides of the aisle. Liberals and neo-cons (almost the same thing frankly) both live in their own bubble and rely on their own truths to justify their ignorant beliefs.
Plus, you are only selecting quotes of convenience to make your point. You discount conservatives intelligence and knowlege... Yet you using the statements of a couple of conservatives to prove your point... That's just silly and makes your point contradictory.
If you have a point that has merit, you should be able to support it using simple independent thought, arguments, and actual facts.
I expose myself to political content regardless of it's left/right affiliation. I will say that I have never seen any conservative media outlet say something as ludicrous as "Liberalism thrives on low intelligence...". There is a simple explanation for this divisive article. The average liberal may indeed be more educated than the average conservative. It's no secret that most institutions of higher education predominantly lean left.
Let's be clear on one thing though, education is not intelligence. I have known some uneducated people who are very intelligent and also some highly educated people who could not reason logically if their lives depended on it. The play on words in this article is insulting and it's sad how readily many of the people in here grab onto it to hate on conservatives. What is also sad is that most of the conservatives I talk to believe that liberals live in an alternate universe based on misinformation from education and corporate news shows.
Why does it have to be a hate fest between liberals and conservatives? Why can't we disagree on some issues without hating each other? I'm sure many of you have brothers, sisters, mothers or fathers with whom you disagree with but you would probably defend them if someone said they had "low intelligence" instead of taking any chance to say "yeah they are so stupid they don't even live in reality." We need to work together because we are all in this s**t together.
We preach identity and yet respect to races.
We teach each other to say, he's Japanese, but human first. The good people, absent of their (D) and (R) identies - all wholeheartedly Know this...Human First.
look, we, the Good, all WANT to help [the homeless/down trodden/economically and physically disabled]. Some only give through taxes. Most give in more direct ways.
but THEN...Ideologoies! Name em up, 'zing it out, Welcome to the 3rd grade playground!
While we ire to recognize the Human in the Indian woman, we forget it when trying to speak with Countrymen, with a common goal to make s**t better.
"look, we, the Good, all WANT to help [the homeless/down trodden/economically and physically disabled]."
And that's why I get pissed when I read some of the posts on Digg. This situation is very similar to someone who is racist because they were brought up in a racist family and not because every minority they met treated them badly.
I have both liberal and conservative friends. They are all good people (and all intelligent btw). I used to be guilty too, hating what the TV and websites like Digg told me to hate. Then one day I stopped to think, "my liberal and conservative friends are not unique, most people want what's best for the country and society even if they disagree on some issues." So why do I hate on them so much?
People need to ask themselves that question and determine if it is from personal experience or because they have been taught to hate.
Well.... most of the conservative "people" here are vehemently opposed to allowing me to marry the man of my dreams (yes that means im a gay man). So as a far as i'm concerned they can go eat s**t and die....the sooner the better in fact.
Once you are on the receiving end of their unending hate, it gets much easier to give em what they give. Something about the only thing evil needs to success is for good men (and women) to do nothing. I refuse to do nothing!
That all being said, I do agree with you that we are all in this together (may sound contradictory but life IS full of them). We are all Americans, we all bleed when you prick us (not a butt sex joke either), and that blood is red.
In a better world conservative hate-mongers would stop trying to divide us in order to win elections (best example was 2004 election).
Hope this helps answer your question about why the vitriol.
My family and friends are all conservative, I have never known any conservative that hated gays or wished them any ill (well maybe one in a small town in TN.) They just get scared that their children will be influenced to experiment with homosexuality. That's really all it's about for most of them, they want straight kids and they don't believe that you are born gay. Of course they will tell you they don't agree with same-sex marriages because, if they didn't, it would be like a liberal saying they don't hate Bush. But most of them don't personally care if 2 same gender people get married.
Personally I lean more toward the middle although it terrifies me how eagerly we give the government more and more control of our lives with no thought about how that power can and will eventually be abused. So yeah, I'm a small government guy, which makes me a conservative and thusly an unintelligent, racist, homophobic, raving lunatic apparently.
I dont want the government running my life either. Especially in personal matters. One giant realm where it seems conservatives have every intention of regulating and prosecuting. There is a visceral strong dislike and fear (to be somewhat polite) that HOMOSEXUALS will "convert" their children or some nonsense like that.... as if that were even possible. I mean seriously, as a man, I can tell you ya cant fake an erection. Can you (if you are a male)?
Most of my family is quite conservative as well. On my mothers side they are almost all evangelical born-agains. Which is in fact how I was raised. Fortunately I have been able to free myself from that indoctrination. Otherwise I'd be on of those self-hating,closeted, having gay sex on the dl without my wife knowing men. My fathers family are a bunch of country club republicans, but the younger gens lap up fox "news" like is ambrosia.
So having witnessed (first hand and with many friends, in addition to other sources) the damage done by "good conservatives" and their narrow turgid view of life, I am quite opposed to their agenda and will not just sit by while evil men (and women) attempt to enslave us with with retrograde world view.
Phewy, i need a drink now:-)
So thinkforyourself, if you'd like to have an actual intellectual discussion, im game. If however you are here to give "intellectual" cover to other less well spoken closed minded bigots, then go bug someone else.
I don't condone conservative sites that bash liberals either so I don't intend to cover for them. As my screen name implies I don't like fanboys and party cheerleaders from either side.
The reason I initially came to Digg is to study liberals. My goal, to be the only living conservative who understands liberal thinking lol. All joking aside though, for a long time I have exposed myself to BOTH sides of aisle. Exposing myself to Digg didn't teach me much about how to understand liberal thinking, it just showed me that liberals hate conservatives.
I lived with a black buy and a guy from Chile when my dad kicked me out of the house at age 17. I was a brainwashed conservative, my black friend was a brainwashed liberal and the guy from Chile just loved soccer and American girls. The point of my little story is that we still became great friends. How? because we were far more important to each other than politics. Also because of beer. Anyways I'd like to see a little of that in this forum and the entire U.S., a little solidarity i guess.
As for your situation I can't fault you for hating conservatism and evangelicalism, but those aren't people. "Love the sinner hate the sin" as my parents used to say. You can hate conservatism and still be kind to conservative people. (well most of them)
That said, sometimes I lose it and insult a particularly ignorant liberal, everyone has their "buttons". But I do try to be civil and treat others as I want to be treated, as I wish more people would.
I also want to say 2 more things. First, it was refreshing to have a conversation with you. So many of the liberals i've talked to in here end up not being interested in exchanging ideas rather than insults.
Second, I really do feel bad for you and I know there are some conservatives that have probably said some very hurtful things to you. Unfortunately sometimes the most vocal people on both ends of the spectrum are the biggest idiots or assh**es so I apologize on behalf of the majority of conservatives that truly want you to be happy.
Maybe sometime you can teach me how to understand liberal thinking on such things as the economy and foreign policy. I truly want to understand how 2 intelligent people can draw 2 seemingly opposed conclusions about an issue, simply because one is a liberal and the other a conservative.
@Think: Understanding liberals on fiscal matters is simple. They believe whatever the theory of the moment handed down from above is. It's really that simple, just go back and read liberal thinking on the economy ten years ago and then from today. All of the liberals on Digg are parroting talking points on command from a pretty vast centralized system that uses a combination of social media and blogs to create a front of group think rather unlike anything I've ever seen.
It may look imposing but I think it puts people off on the end when EVERY liberal is a sort of pod person echoing the same point over and over. The average everyday people not wired into the broadcast system consider that creepy.
Conservatives have a clear advantage in that they also have a lot of blogs and social media involvement but also healthy debate within the system. Look at how the primaries are going, sure from the outside it looks like conservatives are tearing each other apart but if you consider things they are in a far better position for having conservatives really question each other about what the best path forward is. Again if you ask most liberals (especially here on Digg) you will get the same response to a man because they are all being fed the same point through multiple channels.
Perhaps you will get a real and thoughtful response to your query but I very much doubt it. I really appreciate your point though that EVERY person should learn to think for themselves and learn how to really research an issue to make an informed choice.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"Let's be clear on one thing though, education is not intelligence. I have known some uneducated people who are very intelligent and also some highly educated people who could not reason logically if their lives depended on it"
--Can you argue that you set the greatest example when you begin your post suggesting that, because *you've* never seen a comparable article title in the conservative media, this is some kind of scientific evidence that it doesn't occur?
Did you even read the article? Because it seems like your rant is based entirely on the title.
yes i read it, no i'm sure there are better examples, no it's not scientific because it's an observation. Also it's not a "rant"
P.S. If you are going to follow me around Digg and try to nit-pick each post then i'm done with you. If, on the other hand, you want to engage in objective un-biased conversation or even debate then I am open to that.
I didn't want to let our conversation end without some followup. I to have enjoyed the dialogue and would like it (in the future) to continue. As you have seem the usual here is for hardened partisans to lob projectiles at each other from behind our own trenches. I to have engaged in this, and honestly it probably will continue, where warranted. I do have the heart of a warrior:-)
I have vacillated back and forth between whether it should be on digg or on a private email. It is much easier (and rewarding, for me) to have a one on one discussion and it allows for the discovery of common ground. IN WHICH OUR COUNTRY IS IN DIRE NEED. And perhaps if it occurs on digg it may help make this a better place (but i wont hold my breath).
And for the record, the liberals in the Seattle blogosphere dont agree with me all the time either. In fact im quite sure many of them think im some sort of republican plant. HA! My point is that (as your name suggests) I do think for myself.
I think it takes a certain level of closed-mindedness, and not necessarily lack of intelligence, to be an extremist in any political compass. The far right, the far left, those who are so into libertarianism as to practically be anarchist, the facists, communists, capitalists, socialists and statists.
Maybe it's just me, but I tend to keep a centrist point of view. Sometimes I lean a little to the left, sometimes a little to the right, but most of the time a little into libertarianism at the same time. There are points made from all three of those political agendas that just make sense to me.
Going all the way to one side is akin to cheering on your hometown basketball team even though they haven't won a game in 5 seasons (fanboyism, blind faith, etc.)
That's true in some cases, but not all. I have made up my mind on many issues, but it just so happens that there isn't one political party which aligns completely with my opinions. I agree with democrats on many issues, and republicans and libertarians on some others. Ergo, sometimes I vote democrat, sometimes republican, and sometimes I think Ron Paul is awesome (but I don't agree with him on a lot of things at the same time).
If you mean that I can't make up my mind on which party to dedicate myself to, you'd be right. I don't think about the parties as "red vs. blue", I try to keep an open mind and follow whoever I feel has the best interests of the people in mind, without even taking their party into consideration, because it seems to me like there are very little differences between the parties anymore.
The line between democrat and republican, as a label, seems very blurry in modern politics, although the differences between the far left and far right are still as great as they've always been. However, you never really see any extremist candidates (although some are further to one side than others) because they all try to be somewhat centrist so that they can swing voters from party to party.
"However, you never really see any extremist candidates (although some are further to one side than others) because they all try to be somewhat centrist so that they can swing voters from party to party"
have you not been watching the republicans primary? if not, watch a few of them and see your point crumble. its a race to the hard right, even the 'moderate' Romney needs to make a case he is far to the right.
This is not about "political bias", it's about how conservatives are divorced from reality. Sure, an individual can be a "leftwing extremist", but he will be far from claiming the bat-s**t insane things a right wing extremist will - and the reason is that the right wing is usually for religious lies instead of education, and for perpetuating a closed mentality instead of listening to reality. This is why a politician like Obama, who is fairly educated, will easily pull the rug under Republicans, because they are prone to divorcing themselves from reality in order to convince themselves (and others) that their ideals are absolutely correct.
DerNoize, you make good substantive comments. However, IMHO, you have your mind altered by what you consider normal. Most independents would look at many ideas and people you adore as total loons that define bat-shyte crazy.
Most "independents" in America are far from being middle-of-the-road. As you know, America is extremely far-right compared to the rest of the world, and independents are people who are torn between dems and republicans. Looking at how fairly educated most dems sound, and then looking at the Republican debate lineups and their completely idiotic talks about their absolutely insane beliefs - who in their right mind would be torn between these 2 options? You need to have grown up in the bible belt to truly think Republican in America. I'm not trying to appeal to "independents", I have my common sense.
independents = middle of the road (for America). Bye the bye, I live in the south, you know who is most likely to pull the lever for straight party Democrat Party? Those very people you despise. Yep, it's the old red necks.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Oh yes, you're right about the fact that it is SOLD as "middle of the road" in this country, because the older generation in politics wants to benefit from that thought structure that "middle means neutral" and "both american right and left have equal weight". Fox News is all over that kind of propaganda! Rupert Murdoch loves it.
The reality is, even when a dem wins the presidency, liberal america is way under-represented. You have to think of the college generation that mostly doesn't vote (despite a certain surge recently, it's still not too active politically), and is mostly liberal, just like the whole new generation that grew up with technology, science, evolution, secularism. A generation that is more educated not because it gets more degrees, but because it actively seeks information freely available (naturally becoming less religious).
The world is changing much faster than you'd think if you just came from a Republican debate, for example! I can't watch one for more than 10 minutes because I just feel trapped in 1930, it's claustrophobic. Why? Because I'm 28. I was born after 82. I know drugs aren't always bad, and technology completely changes society, irreversibly. I know computers, and I'm as technical as artistic. This is the new generation that in 20 years or so will be dominating politics. The right wing is enjoying their last years of embarrassing desperation before they go up in smoke (or retire). It's evolution, baby.
"most likely to pull the lever for straight party Democrat Party? Those very people you despise. Yep, it's the old red necks."
That I believe. I also believe they are the ones most likely to pull the lever straight republican. The point is, they are the ones most likely to pull the lever straight <blank>. Insert anything here. They are an unthinking lot.
"That didn't make sense, you might have to rephrase it. Voter statistics don't back up your claim."
He didn't say they were mostly democrat. Just most likely to vote the party line. 9 out of 10 of the are republican, but if you are of a mind set to just unthinking pull levers -- most of those people are stupid rednecks. That's what he means, I think.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Why do you assume Democrats sound more educated to those in the middle?
To many of us (I am and have always been a staunch libertarian) the echoing of talking points without thought is a real intellectual turn-off, yet Democrats more and more engage in that to the exclusion of real debate on a topic.
Sure there are SOME unintelligent conservatives, but there are many with very carefully crafted arguments that you are dismissing with your blanket statement.
"Sure there are SOME unintelligent conservatives, but there are many with very carefully crafted arguments that you are dismissing with your blanket statement."
I'd like to know who. My direct observation confirms that democrats tend to sound much more logical, and statistical data supports that they are indeed more educated. I'm not saying it's the best party ever in the history of mankind, but it's by far a much better choice than the current Republican offer. At least they can speak with educated awareness of policy making.
Noize, I can give you a handful of "bat-s**t insane things" that those on the far left hold. The first is that we can routinely spend more than we have and somehow it will all work out in the end. Whether that's just plain government spending, Social Security, etc, they refused to see fiscal reality when in front of them.
Add to that an almost religious-like devotion to the advancement of global warming (which I almost laughed when the "carbon offset" appeared - literally a modern day indulgence).
Lets look at it this way - if you look across the aisle and you see evil and stupidity, you're in the loony fringes. Keep it simple.
Actually, I thought it was obvious that conservatives tend to have the least sustainable ideas - i.e., "things that can't go on forever".
We can spend more than what we have - that has been America's "greatest invention" to the world! We just can't spend more than we MAKE, because the cash flow will be affected. And "spending" isn't as simple as you think. There's spending going on for defense departments and other endeavors, that you would maybe support, but their importance is arguable at best.
Sorry, everytime a conservative talks about "spending more than we have", it sounds stupid for a number of reasons - sounds like a straight talking point from fox news, sounds ignorant because "spending" is generalist. There's good and bad spending. And it sounds ignorant also because That's far from being problem number 1. I'd say a 2 party system, lobbyists in washington and overall corruption (that leans more towards the right than the left) are definitely the biggest problems. Spending? Yeah there's a lot of military spending that's probably unnecessary when America should be investing in healthcare and education. But it's a big country, so of course there will always be spending.
"Add to that an almost religious-like devotion to the advancement of global warming (which I almost laughed when the "carbon offset" appeared - literally a modern day indulgence)."
Well, I'm sorry to burst you bubble, but global warming is a scientific reality that is ignored by politicians , especially on the right. It's a real problem that involves the end of humanity, but if you want to be in denial, even though your complete ignorance and negligence will also kill me and my family eventually, go ahead - I try to not argue about it because I know how closed-minded you people are.
"Lets look at it this way - if you look across the aisle and you see evil and stupidity, you're in the loony fringes. Keep it simple."
Yeah s**t's simple when you follow logic and commons sense. The problem is everyone who thinks they follow common sense, when they are actually following what their ultra-conservative, sickeningly religious family told them as they grew up. That's not common sense, it's indoctrination.
Lets start with spending... you're right, not all spending is bad. But if you want to see what happens when you borrow too much and have no way to repay it, take a look at Greece.
Granted, they have a key factor that the US does not have - the ability to inflate the debt away, but that only delays the inevitable. Once lenders understand that inflation is a real thing again, they'll start demanding higher and higher interest rates to offset that expected inflation. The ultimate reality is that the laws of finance will always win. We could cut all spending except "good" spending (which we will probably disagree on) but if that good spending still pushes us deeper and deeper in debt, there is no other outcome. Debts must be repaid. And you can only fool some of the people some of the time, but not everyone all of the time.
As for global warming... I think climate change is a better phrase and while I think it is occuring and we need to adapt to stop it, there are those on the left that go far beyond that point to the looney-toon religious factor. They would undo all the improvements of the 20th century and deny the luxuries they have to entire peoples to "save the planet". Yet they still fly in their private jets and live in mansions large enough to contain villages. As one of my friends used to say, "I'll believe them when they start acting like its true."
Here's the thing about common sense - its not complicated. If you cannot explain your reasoning quickly, its not common sense. I can do that with debt and its dangers - I can also do it with taxation and its dangers (both high and low). But I'll mention what I said above - common sense is also knowing when you're being manipulated. And when people say one thing and do another, its a huge red flag.
Do I conserve? Do I tithe? Do I save? Yes. Because I think we have a higher calling than to do just do whats in our best interest. But, standing here in the center, it drives me nuts how both sides point to the other claiming all these things, yet do not see the same deeds in their own.
Yeah, well, Greece has nothing to do with America. America gets away with s**t because it's a superpower, but lets not go there. Greece had once an empire that would take America thousands of years to top, so I don't think America was ever in position to talk like it's much better. At only 200 years, there's plenty of time ahead for people here to f**k up their own empire.
"The ultimate reality is that the laws of finance will always win."
Will they? 10 years ago the "laws of finance" dictated that a company like Google could never be profitable. Whoever writes the "laws of finance" knows so much about the technological world 10 years into the future as my grandma knows about 21nm integrated circuits. Something as "solid" as the economy is laying on social layers that will be completely shaken by technology.
"while I think it is occuring and we need to adapt to stop it, there are those on the left that go far beyond that point to the looney-toon religious factor. They would undo all the improvements of the 20th century and deny the luxuries they have to entire peoples to "save the planet"."
I would be careful to never compare liberals to any sort of religious behavior, since liberals are much more secular than the average liberal criticizer - who tend to engage in the most absurd religious fanatic behavior. Glass house? Don't throw stones.
Besides, I think you underestimate the value of their exaggeration. I hope their uncontrolled freakouts are enough to counter the opposite side that simply doesn't give a f**k, and will drive a Hummer even if half the world entered a new ice age. Liberals aren't freaking out about the environment, because that takes some years - they are freaking out about the idiots who think they can s**t all over the world and not be responsible for the mess.
"As one of my friends used to say, "I'll believe them when they start acting like its true.""
Yeah right! No he won't. When he believes them, it will be because it's too late, and his thick brain finally understood the extent of the problem. Newsflash: they've been acting like it's true. Yeah you have rich liberals (I know a lot of them), but usually rich liberals drive a prius, even though they could drive something a lot more gas-guzzling, like a real american millionaire. That in itself shows a slightly different awareness.
"Here's the thing about common sense - its not complicated. If you cannot explain your reasoning quickly, its not common sense."
Well, the problem is, my ability to explain it depends on your ability to understand it. If you can't understand it quickly, doesn't mean it's not common sense. Maybe you're just stupider then you think!
"common sense is also knowing when you're being manipulated."
Yeah? Tell that to the jesus freak nation that the republican candidates are desperately trying to cater to (sounding like clueless idiots in the process).
There's a lot more "pointing" and a lot less responsibility coming from the modern christian right, than the "filthy hippies" they try so hard to villify. Funny what the red scare still does to a country, even in 2012. It completely screwed the baby boomer generation with beliefs that are limited, dogmatic and fear-based. It's very, very sad. But it will be over soon, when that generation dies off.
Lets just stick with the laws of finance (which are far, far different than explaining why Google will are will not make a profit).
Any time you loan someone money, there are several factors you price into the interest rate (or fees, but those are essentially points). Default risk is the primary factor today - we all see that with the bond ratings (AAA, AA+, etc). But there are also factors included such as the fed rate (which is 0, so right now its not much of an issue) but also the inflation risk adjustment.
This is why in the 80's you had mortgage rates in high teens and the US was borrowing at 10+%. Do you know what would happen if rates went up to 5% from the relatively low percentages we pay now?
And say we decide to inflate... well, lenders will start demanding 7, 8 or 10%. And things start to get worse and worse... just as is happening with Greece. That's the laws of finance working out - you start to get risky (default risk goes up) so the lenders raise their rates... which means its harder to pay, so the default risk goes up... that's the classic death spiral.
Right on point. No, its not possible for everyone's views to resolve in to 'two neat' sides'. Yet many people fit their views to match their party's position. I personally prefer to think as objectively as possible (a point of pride) and disregard the R or D. I don't understand people such as Skype (just below) who takes pride in having a 'settled mind'. Challenging our views and evolving is a good thing. A closed mind is a waste.
On a side note, I don't believe it is left, right, or middle. We are all capable of having opinions all across the spectrum. What I do believe happens is that many have a great need for Belonging. Therefore, they choose a party to belong as much as anything. Then, they can feel better by pointing to how much better they are than 'evil liberals' or 'evil conservatives'.
But centrist is relative. Centrist in one country might be different than another. This implies that the extremist voice is sometimes the reasonable one. (And by extremist I don't mean torch waving mouth frother but just someone with a very different opinion)
"And by extremist I don't mean torch waving mouth frother"
I didn't mean it that way, either. An extremist, to me, is someone who is at or near one extreme end of any spectrum, be it political, religious, or anything else.
For instance, if you look at the diagram of the political compass, you'll see to the north is Authoritarian, to the south Libertarian, west is the left and east is the right. Here's a diagram to put it into perspective:
"It is by no means the first such paper. There is plenty of research showing that low general intelligence in childhood predicts greater prejudice towards people of different ethnicity or sexuality in adulthood. Open-mindedness, flexibility, trust in other people: all these require certain cognitive abilities. Understanding and accepting others – particularly 'different' others – requires an enhanced capacity for abstract thinking.
"...prejudice tends not to arise directly from low intelligence but from the conservative ideologies to which people of low intelligence are drawn. Conservative ideology is the 'critical pathway' from low intelligence to racism."
Yeah, low IQ and conservative beliefs are linked to prejudiced attitudes, but studies also show that liberals are more intelligent, more educated and more monogamous while conservatives are more inclined to “group think”, more easily frightened, more squeamish, have less empathy and are slower to show empathy than the poor.
Liberals, with their high intelligence are suckers for statistics and can get sucked into the idiotic arguments. Basically all of the above studies have abused statistics in some way to get the result they wanted.
Are you worried about BPA? there is a good chance you are a liberal!
Are you worried about cholesterol? Another good chance you are a liberal!
Are you worried about eating animals? A really good chance you are liberal!
It is not that conservatives don't worry about such nonsense. There are many that do. There are just more liberals worried about it than conservatives. Now, if you don't like plastic bottles because they make your water taste a little different, you just have a sensitive palette, that's fine. If you avoid bottled water because of the potential of BPA, you are little better than the conservative right wing nut who thinks religion is really important. If you are taking a statin because you and your doctor think it is the right thing and you can deal with the side effects, you are making an informed decision. If you are taking statins because that way you don't have to worry about cholesterol, well, you are just irrational. If you don't like the taste of meat, hey, don't eat it. I completely support your choice. If you turn to me and tell me that it is uneconomical, you don't understand the metrics underlying the system. You are parroting others with no understanding.
Studies are mostly crap. The best a study can do is tell you a relationship is not there(liberals are not always stupid). Any study that says a relationship exists (conservative are idiots) can be counted on to be completely wrong.
The rich irony of what I just said is that the important work done in studies is usually never seen. It is only the unimportant work that gets published. The most important information completed by studies is the information showing the relationship doesn't exist. These don't get published unless there was a previous study showing it did exist.
I think your mistake is seeing "liberals" as the opposite of "conservatives." As though one side is very smart, and the other very stupid. I think many conservative politicians are smart, and just play the electorate with rhetoric and emotional drivel to get elected. There are also a lot of conservatives who use liberal-like fact-bending to achieve their goals -- the WSJ is full of such people.
I see what you are saying -- people who think they are smart by quoting facts and figures can actually be a different brand of stupid -- but I think in general we can agree that this is still a better position to be in. It's better because it is concerned with facts; this means you can change their minds by presenting more reliable or more recent facts. A dyed-in-the-wool conservative, however, is ruled entirely by guess and fantasy and faith, and can never be shaken no matter how much evidence is shown to him. Can you see why this is a far more dangerous and destructive form of extremism?
Extreme liberals may be wrong, but at least you can make them right through education. Extreme conservatives are not much different from Islamists. They "just know" in their "heart" that they are correct.
Changing the minds of liberals is not as easy as you would think. How many of them understand that recycling paper is a bad thing? I can paint them endless energy balances, but they "Know" that recycling is better. "It's just common sense you know!"
The picture you paint of conservatives is the exact same for liberals. That is to say the liberals that fit that bent.
I had a conversation with a conservative that fits your portrait one day. I spent 45 minutes carefully explaining why she shouldn't worry about the utterances of scientists telling us to worry about Caffeine, BPA, Soda, and 18000 other substances of note. She looked at me and said "Brad, when god calls me to heaven, it is because it is time for me to go, there is nothing I can do to change that!"
I realize that she had in one sentence summed up my carefully crafted scientific message. I realized that for all the not so perfect things that have come out of the mouths of the religiously fanatic, there is sometimes an amazingly accurate rationality.
The religion of the left is every bit as irrational as those on the right. They may have different names for their religions -- Environmentalism, veganism, Love on another ism. Whatever it is, it is inhabiting the same region of the brain that those fundamentalists being disparaged by these studies.
Try to reason with someone who thinks BPA is dangerous. There is not one death that can be tied to BPA. The most that has been tied to BPA is men getting bigger breasts. Just yesterday I saw someone worried about the plastic in a VitaMix container because it had BPA and it might leach into the food. For some reason they completely forget that BPA is used to line cans. One of the benefits of lining cans with BPA plastic i that metal didn't leach into the foods giving canned foods that wonderful metallic overtone. Why is it that the ELITE media haven't informed us properly on this subject? Why is it that BPA is hated so? It is not because the liberal mind is so wonderfully more adept.
Sorry. There is irrational behavior everywhere. Attempting to glimmer a 0.5% difference between two equivalent groups is done by people who need to take a good long look in the mirror and wonder if they aren't who they are talking about.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
So, lemme sum this up, studies prove that Idiots are more Racist?
Right?
How about this:
You need to staff a library.
Politician One says: Go hire 6 good future government workers.
Politician Two says: Go hire 6 workers. Make sure at least half are women, and at least half are Mexican/Latino, Black/Africian or Native American.
Which one is the Racist?
If you said #1, the Liberal Media and Publc agree with you. Your inability to DEFINE a MANDATED quota based not on skill, but ethnicity, makes you a racist. Seen you didnt consider Races of people, therefore youre Racits.
If you said #2, congrats, You and I see eye to eye.
Childhood intelligence needs a nurturing environment. From nutrition including vitamins prior to and after birth, from things like a loving environment free of abuse, the sounds of language and of music spoken and provided by mother and father and others including the reading of story to child from good books. The thresh hold moments of learning provided with the tools of learning and of habit of responsibility and learning pride in fun stuff and that the more thought on some things the more interesting they are.. It's like an antidote to lack of desire to keep the mind clear to learn even more stuff.. - and then there is that which destroy worlds and bring learning in a safe place to a halt like extreme poverty or fighting and abuse.. Don't underestimate the ability to raise kids well and for capacity to learn to take off.. But right now the Earth needs protecting so kids all over the place have a tomorrow. A chance for a peaceful world and to hear things like birds sing.. A chance to be able to help others and raise a family of their own.. Like a promise to keep for all..
It wouldn't surprise me if such sites were backed by Soros. It's amazing how lefties can find these sites, yet many conservatives have never heard of them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Sorry to disappoint you but Conservapedia is the work of Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, to counter what he called the liberal bias of Wikipedia
At best it suggests you aren't paying very close attention to what you're supporting. But I also don't think anyone would be surprised if it turned out nothing you just said was true.
Oh no no no. See, thats another failure of the Liberal Mind.
See, I dont seek out Conservatives-R-Us. I already know the sky is blue, why should I seek out more evidence?
I look for what the 'other side' sees. I listen to David Sirota and Mario Solis Marich on Radio, not Rush and Glenn Beck.
When I want to fling Liberal Poo, I go to Media Matters, Alternet, Politicususa......I use their sources to show stupidity. I've never once dove into the "ultra-crazy-fringe-blog" to use as evidence of Liberal Idiocy.
.....YET
....You guys dig up some fickle conservapedia....
Every day I take myself out of myself, and try to see what everyone else sees.
If you think Conservapedia is some tiny fringe thing noone's heard of and that most people in your party are thinkers and moderates then you really haven't been paying attention.
Your movement is your movement. It doesn't matter how sophisticated your thinking is (and nothing you've said suggests it is), if you're using your voice to support an unsophisticated mob than you are no better than that mob. If you don't even know what the mob you're supporting is doing then you're just a dick.
Trying to tell people the mob isn't there is not a valid retort.
I certainly don't believe you've ever tried to see what a liberal sees, but that's not even enough. You wouldn't be capable of doing that properly unless you understood them first and you've clearly got the same inability and disinterest when it comes to that as every other "thinker" in your mob.
It's all really sad actually. You're a great example. You actually think you're trying, but you've got all this crap embedded in everything you say. You've got your "Liberal Mind" proper nouns and your "obviously all my opinions are solid facts akin to the color of the sky" bulls**t. And everything you say is in terms of group conflict and where to get material to "fling". And you actually think you're trying to understand all sides. And on top of that you're smug about it. The point is, you're sad and pathetic.
The fact that the post saying "...no conservative has any business pretending they deserve respect." was dugg up 10 times speaks volumes about the majority that frequent Digg.
Also telling is the fact that elcalrissan's innocuous post was dugg down simply because it refuted a post that bashed conservatives. Pretty easy to see why people always call Digg a liberal circle jerk. The message I get is "we hate conservatives and there's nothing you can say that will make us stop hating them." If you're not going to be open minded at least have some integrity.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"The Catholic Compromise fools no one and is bad medicine, both for the women involved and for the larger society"
It links to a article that so blatant in what it wants to do, refuse women the right to use birth control....it distorts so many facts; only the ignorant will believe it.
like this one
". A woman who takes it all the time might even choose to marry someone with whom she is less likely to have children. (And when she stops using the pill, she might find that she married the wrong man, but never really know why.)"
Before they can understand the conclusion, they have to understand the definitions of Conservative and Liberal.
From Dictionary/Thesaurus.com
Conservative-
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: cautious, moderate, tending to preserve the status quo
Synonyms: Tory, bourgeois, constant, controlled, conventional, die-hard, fearful, firm, fogyish, fuddy-duddy, guarded, hard hat, hidebound, holding to, illiberal, in a rut, inflexible, middle-of-the-road, not extreme, obstinate, old guard, old line, orthodox, quiet, reactionary, redneck, right, right of center, right-wing, sober, stable, steady, timid, traditional, traditionalistic, unchangeable, unchanging, uncreative, undaring, unimaginative, unprogressive, white bread
Conservative-
1. preservative
2. a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism: as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) : progressive conservative
3. a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional b : marked by moderation or caution <a conservative estimate> c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
Liberal-
1. a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2. a : marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : ample, full
3. obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4. not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>
5. broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
Pretty ballsy comment coming from a guy who has submitted almost 4500 stories of which only 4% have gone popular. And more than likely, none of those would have hit the front page had they not been made staff picks. Not everyone has direct connections with the people running the site.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Upset? Not me bro. Like I said, I could give two s**ts. I'm just taking up for someone who I don't think has done anything wrong who you attacked. I've got bigger fish to dirtyfry.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Good call hoss. Him insulting the original poster about meds certainly wasn't doing anything wrong. Nor is spamming Digg with an endless stream of garbage.
Partisan shill. Keep replying, there's nothing like using you to bump the activity feed to afford you some relevance.
Because you don't like the message, it automatically makes everything he submits spam or garbage? You don't seem to have a problem digging or submitting similar sites that agree with your point of view.
That last sentence doesn't even make sense. You're obviously running out of things to say or just can't come up with anything but insults, much like your first reply. I thought you had a little more in the tank than that. Talk about pathetic.
Yawn, sorry to break it to you but you're nothing but a screen name and empty words to me. What you know or think you know is pretty irrelevant to me. Take the tough internet guy routine elsewhere.
Point is, he opted to insult someone unprovoked. You felt he did no wrong and it reveals you for what you are, a partisan hack and nothing more.
As to his content, I don't mind that it goes against what I think. What I do mind is that he's singularly plugging a blog that not only just reposts from elsewhere, but also totally distorts the original articles. It's crap, through and through....and it comes from both sides around here. Which is why I bury it from both sides.
Not exactly... On the left side, sometimes they go too far. On the right side, they often do. It's the group think, reality divorced, fear-based mentality (that drives the right and not so much the left), that creates that IQ gap.
More on low intelligence than poor information. Intelligence can see out information, but you have do be pretty dull witted to just keep swollwing spoonful after spoonful of unconfirmed crap.
Liberals and moderates go to the same schools conservatives go to, they can just actually learn.
seriously, they pride themselves on their ignorance. They think science is a religion or a belief and argue against it as such, for instance global warming/climate change. Do you think any of us arguing that this is taking place, WANT THIS to be true? No, science evolves all the time and if new information came out leading us to a different conclusion, those of us with scientific minds will accept that. We are not going to believe in something if its not happening. That's the difference, and really you can't argue with that.
Its not intelligence, its critical thinking skills
People in the right wing often cannot separate their emotions with logic. A leader can stand in front of a audience and say buzz words like socialism, communism, class warfare etc...the followers will let their emotions run first and never listen to logic, (like socialism and communism is two different things) and get all up in arms...then they repeat to their conservative friends (its doubtful the right wingers want to know anyone who thinks different) who also get all up in arms
Facts do not matter, only emotions...the human mind will feel emotions despite the logic behind it, in fact, the human mind will create its reality to fit with the emotions despite the truth behind it. Conservatives where never taught to tell between the human mind tricking to feel and what is the truth.
Since this is a trait of children...its how the leaders often talk to them; short simple quick talks based on feelings instead of breaking down a argument and explaining why your way is better.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
i don't know what kind of word that it would be, smart people fall into this trap as well...Its human nature, and honestly you cant blame the republicans for falling for it simply because its the leaders using basic psychology to manipulate the masses...Its nothing new, the churches have been doing it for more then two thousand years.
The way to stop it is to teach them when they are young, very few adults will challenge their own thinking....even proactively trying to do it is difficult, the human mind is one tricky SOB.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"Importantly, it shows that prejudice tends not to arise directly from low intelligence but from the conservative ideologies to which people of low intelligence are drawn."
The fact that this story keeps coming out again and again, making the same leaps, makes me start to wonder if this is just the beginning of something bigger. Label your opponents subhuman, dumb, unable to be reasoned with... we've had that start before.
Lets look at it more broadly. There are those who take things at face value on both sides. There are those in the middle who do the same. But "greater prejudice towards people of different ethnicity or sexuality in adulthood" would be said of either party. It comes down to how it expresses itself. I, for one, thing one of the most insidious changes on the last generation is how we seem to make it perfectly fine to accept that certain people would never survive without the government helping them. Is that better than overt racism?
Walt Allen. Ahhhh, freshman Baseball tryouts. I was a swimmer, wet haired smelling of cholrine. The other freshman, eager to make the team, immediately looked at my wet hair, associated it with swimming, and then Speedos, and then to my sexuality.
Walt was the worse. Leading the pack of drooling idiots to ostracize the 'Faggy Swimmer'.
It was unending. Taking grounders at third, taking pickoffs, learning the signs, no matter what we were practicing, Walt pointed out my 'other' sport, my chubby cheeks, and my glasses.
Two weeks later, the list was posted. 2nd Team Varsity? The Faggy, Nerdy, Chubby Swimmer. Freshman team? Didnt include Walt.
You'd listen to him, and Walt was amazing, while the faggy swimmer was faggy.
I guess it was about this time in my life when I started to realize that those who throw the stones, those who bark the loudest, and those who label based on futile and wavering traits, THOSE people are the biggest idiots of them all.
Reading the postings written by the DPs here, it's funny to see how threatened they are obviously feeling towards information like this. It's like they're backed into a corner and only know how to insult and thrash about to get out.
It's also funny to note that you never seem to find studies showing the opposite, wherein LIBERALS are the low IQ, prejudice ones; and all the while liberals can seem to back themselves up with facts and figures more so than conservatives, who just keep saying how stupid liberals are without the ability to back it up with anything.
I wish those of you without low intelligence knew the difference between fiscal and social conservatism. Obama, Santurom, Newt, and Romney, all anti-gay marriage, pro-war, anti-pot, pro-patriot act. Ron Paul is the opposite.
The fact that Ron Paul still says it's America's own fault we got what we deserved for 9/11 and other terror attacks. He's gotta be everyone's worse nightmare for foreign policy. He won't help Israel too. Our own allies he'd rather brush them off.
economic fantasy.
social fantasy
historical fiction
scientific fallacy
intentional division damaging America for the sake of party gain
Continued stripping of the workers in favor of the rich and the non-working rural areas
despicable as individuals
pseudo-intellectuality and in general inferior thinking process
...
squir·rel·y /ˈskwɜrəli, ˈskwʌr- or, especially Brit., ˈskwɪr-/ Show Spelled[skwur-uh-lee, skwuhr- or, especially Brit., skwir-] Show IPA
adjective Slang .
eccentric; flighty.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"Importantly, it shows that prejudice tends not to arise directly from low intelligence but from the conservative ideologies to which people of low intelligence are drawn."
That is the common failed stereotype coming from the liberal propaganda. When you see the kind of stuff that liberal left breeds, such as wall street occupiers, communists, and homosexuals, whose minds and bodies are diseased, you quickly realize that liberalism in general is a mental disorder.
What liberals want to do is have conservatives tolerate their lifestyle of death; tolerate their views on homosexuality, aids, abortion, feminism, and other crap that they bring from the gutter. Intelligence is not tolerance. Intelligence is the rejection the total rejection of liberal views. Sure you can be patient, and nice to these folks, but at the same time rejecting for everything they stand for and believe in. Tolerance, ironically, is something foreign to liberalism when it comes to them tolerating conservatism.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I find that tolerating bigots - people who would cheerfully drop a tire around my neck and torch it in the public square if they thought they could get away with it - is stupid. For it will lead to conditions where they CAN get away with it. Like, say, Iran. Or Afghanistan.
Since I do not want to have a burning tire around my neck for the crime of being me in public, I publically point out the muderously stupid belief-sets that lead to such conditions.
Such as yours.
For it's folks such as you that used to pose for photos in full Klan regalia. And no, that ain't a leap of assumption. I was raised by such folks, grew up among them. They talked just LIKE that, and mourned the days when they could make sure that "gentlemen, gentlemen and short haired wimmen" knew what would happen to them if they stepped out of place.
So yes. I do dispise you. For cause. Because people like you, and your attitudes toward others make the world a worse place. Because you are not just wrong, but are active in support of ideals that lead directly and obviously toward evil outcomes for others, and you think that is good. You cheerfully consider those who disagree with you to be subhuman and unworthy of the protection of the law - and will subvert any law that disagrees.
So I do not tolerate you. And, of course, given the choice to advantage you, or advantage a human being possessing a sense of decency, or indeed, a random rock... I'll go for "not you."
You need to check your mutuals here on digg for many on the Left (here on digg) violence is always the first choice. But you probably just mean those on the right so my bad.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I mean "people like you." Folks who use politics or religion as an excuse to be assh**es unto others. Sometimes they pretend to be "leftists," sometimes "rightists" but it's all about them, all the time, so the words don't matter.
Take what you just said about what I said. You asserted that I was advocating violence. What I said was that I do not tolerate nor will I advantage anyone who is intolerant.
I don't do business with them. I don't buy cookies from their kids. I don't sign their petitions. If they need a zoning variance and I am asked to support it, I won't. If there are three homeless families, and theirs is one of them, the other two get the first call on stuff I have to spare. If I know about a job, or have extra snow tires, or know of a good second-hand car... I don't call them. If they need to move - well, not only won't I help, nor will I lend my pickup, I don't even have boxes to spare.
It's called shunning.
All the little things that members of a community do for one another, I don't do for them, because they don't want to be part of a community of decent people. They are hateful, say things that make me uncomfortable and expect me to tolerate their sexist homophobic idiocies - "or else."
They think it's "communism" give a crap about my neighbours. So, clearly, they are not a good investment for me - or anyone else who knows what "community" is. Nor are they really interested in my help - unless it's free. Because that's what freedom means to them... something for nothing.
Ah, I misunderstood. I see what you are saying is that my points are discredited because some people who may superficially seem to agree with me think that violence is a reasonable response to people who advocate the things you seem to like.
You also seem to think that I "belong" to some identifiable ideology. Well, if "not an assh**e" is an ideology, I suppose so. And if not wanting to put up with assh**es is a POLITICAL viewpoint or intent to commit "social engineering", or an imposition upon people of faith... well, I'll raise my hand to that.
assh**es are stinky.
I don't like being expected to pretend they are roses, and frankly, if the GOP, or American Conservatism or those who assert that morality in public life matters and therefore ally themselves with social conservatism (as if the two ideas were similar) it might be wise to rethink this idea of offering us all a bouquet of assh**es come election time. Because candidates stand for something - and these assh**es stand up proudly for being assh**es, in order to gain the assh**e vote.
And the more the Right panders to idiots and assh**es, the stronger other parties become, because MOST people don't LIKE having to put up with hateful assh**es in order to get things done.
Now that it has gotten to the point where it's all assh**es snapping at assh**es with the AVOWED GOAL of doing nothing, or possibly less than that... well... if you think the resulting discontent is *idealogical* it is because they are rejecting the *idiot* part of your ideology.
I darkly note that your comment seems to indicate that you belong to a group of people that seem to feel that saying the word "assh**e" is more offensive and immoral than *behaving* like an assh**e.
50% of Americans receive some form of government assistance.
20% of Americans rely on the federal government for everything from housing, health care, and food stamps to college tuition and retirement assistance.
Government dependency jumped 8.1 percent in the past year.
The average individual who relies on Washington receives benefits valued at $32,748, more than the nation’s average disposable personal income ($32,446).
Half of the U.S. population (49.5 percent) does not pay any federal income taxes.
In the next 25 years, more than 77 million baby boomers will retire... relying on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
50% of people dont pay federal taxes, this is because they dont make enough and cannot live with extra burdens. there are other taxes they pay.
Government dependency is on the rise because the banks decided they wanted to f**k everyone and destroyed the world economy. (the president has not changed the requirements for government assistance...short of unemployment, but that's just normal in a economic downturn;
also, the president doesn't have that kind of power, it falls in congress and what you are referring to can only happen in congress)
social security, medicare and medicaid are all payed by the people; social security is solvent but the federal government raided that to pay for wars, medicare and medicaid are out of hand because of greedy healthcare system...not because its a bad program.
"70% of the federal government’s budget goes to individual assistance programs."
you need to minus what is put into it and what is put out of it; medicare, medicaid and social security are all taxes, figure how much comes in minus how much goes out...If you factor that in, the cost goes way down and what is left is the defense budget that spends 50% more then the rest of the world combined.
See how your mislead? maybe you should branch to other news sources.
"Government dependency is on the rise because the banks decided they wanted to f**k everyone"
Which was, just to remind you, done at the instruction of the government...
How odd that the government would want to make MORE people dependent on government, which then in turn means the government must grow larger...
Something that cannot continue forever, will not.
The only question is how much pain comes at the end of the ride. If we continue down the current path the end game is worse even than Greece. It is morally repugnant to get the poor addicted to government assistance because it will not last forever and they the people cannot help themselves, and after a long enough time of government assistance the charities have withered and died.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
This article looks analogous to the study about Mac users being smarter than Windows users on average. It could be related to status quo of remaining in Windows platforms even though there are superior platforms available.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The irony of you replying to an article about poor information claiming anyone would suggest the Biblical of Pi is 3 is hysterical. Join me on a discovery of truth and let us see what the Bible says of Pi:
"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26"
A cubit is 18 inches, a hand is 4 inches, thus:
outer diameter: 10 cubits = 180 inches
outer radius = 5 cubits = 90 inches
inner radius = 5 cubits minus a hand = 90-4=86 inches
circumference = 30 cubits = 540 inches
C = 2(pi)r
Pi = 540/172 = 3.1395 or 3.14 to two decimal places.
Why did this comment get Dugg down? It looks legit to me. Is it just because no one likes this guy (I'm new here)? I thought he did a pretty good job explaining it.
Modern day conservatives have abandon independently verifiable facts (liberal bias?!?!) and retreated into a realm of their own making. Its populated with their own "experts" who get paid to do nothing but make their "facts" fit their ideology. So to respond to your question, if mob rule is a place where people see through this rouse then yes, i'm part of this mob.
Even a broken clock like barackalypse is right twice a day. As you become more familiar with this sight you will notice that many many accounts (i say accounts and not people, for good reason) will parrot foxnews (the unofficial mouth piece of the republican party) talking points. So yes, I also dugg that steaming pants load Barack-alypse down.
That's EXACTLY what liberal beliefs are about. The Daily Kos claims Pi is 3, and here you are posting in support of it and the MSNBC video showing three leading "scientists" in support of the thing.
Well, yeah, if you don't believe the truth you're ignorant and stupid. Do you disagree with that? Then you're ignorant and stupid. "Prejudice" is judging before you have all the facts, but we're not doing that. Being a bigot who is intolerant only of the stupid and ignorant is the enlightened way of life.
Republicans are the modern day Communists: They have a Marx & Engels(Ayn Rand&n Milton Friedman) and a mytholigized Lenin & Mao (Reagan, Thatcher) and their own Stalin (Bush? Gingrinch? Take your pick).
Most importantly, they have the Little Red Book of Conservatism where Nothing is Wrong and no dissent may be brokered and straw enemies must be labelled and hunted. Hell..even though supplyside and unfettered deregulation failed..they are like Lysenko's false model of evlution which resulted in so much famine and was adhred to for decades afterwards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
Right now if mankind can not get its wits about him and mount a concerted effort at stopping global warming all hope will be lost relatively shortly thereafter. It's not about who is smarter right now or really anything else than how can the knowledge and abilities we have be put to best use and somehow build the society and industrial capacity along with and including new discovery and tracking of effectiveness of things tried so that history can be altered in the most spectacular way.. If we focus on that, I believe great things could be.
There are some lower intelligence conservatives out there, just like outlying people in any group. On the other hand, liberals that consider themselves academics, or even just think they have above average intelligence are so arrogant and full of devouring each other's BS that they are practically blind.
I see. So stupid conservatives are just 'a subset' but ALL liberals are academics. Most people like the at least wedge one rational sentence between contradicting ones, but not reverant. Kudos.
It's actually a syndicated Guardian article and cites the Psychological Science journal from Canada (an actual medical journal). It also points out that the Daily Mail, a conservative British tabloid, broke the news in Britain. You would know that had you read the article.
The facts are in question, to say the least. From William M. Briggs, Adjunct Professor of Statistical Science at Cornell University.
"One would have guessed from the title, that the authors looked at how the scores on the intelligence questions correlated with the scores on the attitude and racism questions, taking into account the uncertainty in the reliability. You would be wrong.
They first modeled the intelligence questions to create one “latent” (unobserved) measure, called “g”. The uncertainty in creating “g” is then ignored in all subsequent analysis. They did the same for the attitude questions, creating a “latent” (actually unobserved) variable called “conservative ideology.” Uncertainty in its creation is also ignored. Then the individuals’ education and socioeconomic status and separately their parent’s socioeconomic status (which again were the results of models) were put into a model with “g” and “conservative ideology” to predict “racism” (the uncertainty of which, as was already said, was ignored)."
I really wasn't sure anyone would be able to effectively challenge Professor Briggs' analysis until you showed up with that bit of brilliance.
In fact I don't think anyone needs to now; your thoughtful, insightful rebuttal totally negates his analysis and conclusions. You've demonstrated again that studies like these aren't even necessary...if we have any doubt about Progressives' intellect being superior, we'll just call up one of your comments, and retreat in awe.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Actually dumbass, I'm not challenging Professor Briggs at all. I'm calling you out for the piece of trash, low life hypocrite that you are.
Let's see simpleton. I brought up the DP to another poster and you went ape s**t. You used faulty twisted "logic" and childishly said "but..but...the other side has people that bury and run too!". Pathetic.
I was wondering why you cared so much when I brought up the digg partiots (a pathetic group of trash that try to suppress any other points of view) and then I saw that you are a member of that pathetic group.
Quick, quick, run and get all your little pathetic buddies and log into all of your sock puppet accounts and bury me. It will never change the fact that you are a pathetic piece of trash, "bro".
"Actually dumbass, I'm not challenging Professor Briggs at all"
Exactly, because you're not capable of doing so.
And, as I indicated earlier, Professor Briggs does a wonderful job debunking this study for the leftist tripe it is. But really, one need only look at the sophomoric, inane commentary of people like yourself to realize that even if it were, there are obviously glaring exceptions.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"Exactly, because you're not capable of doing so."
And you know this how? I'm not discussing Professor Briggs or his study. I'm not discussing the study that this story is about. I'm discussing your hypocrisy and your lack of intelligence.
This was made abundantly clear when you went apes**t like a little girl when I brought up the digg patriots. You then shown how much of a piece of s**t you are when you used every attack your little mind could make, didn't know the difference of mocking your tiny little mind or what an excuse is, and then hypocritically left out information of my posts to attack me.
You're a perfect example of this article. How many times did you post that blog site? How many times did you feel threatened that your lack of intelligence was going to be found out?
You're nothing more than a tool. The fact that you are a member of the DP just goes to show that you're a piece of f**king trash on top of being a tool.
You know it's been awhile since I talked with someone that offers nothing useful or intelligent to say. Oh look, how have you been bluto?
Considering the tool that I was referring to atomheartmother is a digg patriot (you know those pieces of trash who claim they're American by trying to suppress others opinions) that would mean that you bluto don't know what the hell you're talking about.
How am I lying Bluto? Is that what you use to attack people that you lack the intelligence to converse with? I'm not complaining about the DP, I could careless that there is a bunch of hypocrite pieces of trash that bury my comments or feel the need to lie about me or what I've said.
So let me ask you Bluto.
Are you a f**king piece of trash or a piece of f**king trash?
No they aren't. What you mean to say is the STUDY is in question. You provided nothing for back even that up, but the facts are the facts. There is no question about them.
I don't even know what article you are even reading. The one referenced not only doesn't have that name in it, but it very long, succinct, and loaded with data.
Oh, and calling me Chinese as if it were a curse probably does not help your cause that you are NOT a racist. The more you speak, the more like the article you become.
Oh, never mind. I see. You cited your own article. Aparently the one we were actually talking about was too ironclad to break down, so you tried the old switch-a-roo.
Didn't even read it -- couldn't even find it, just the name. Couldn't even figure where you pulled it out of your ass. But a quick google search on the name (trying to figure out what you were talking about) let me to the usual sources: National Review, the "Libertarian" something or other. Stopped searching and came back at that point. Not my job -- look up the peer review process Again, you couldn't win on the facts at hand, so you ran to your usual places for lies and got some. Congrats, you continue to confirm the the study you wish to refute.
Paraphrase if for me. You are the 'seller.' Sell me on it. You know me, if you are right I'll admit it. But you have to actually be right.
I'll do one better. From the actual smackdown itself:
"Watch out Sam Harris, Gordon Hodson and Michael A. Busseri of Brock University are giving you competition for the worst use of statistics in an original paper.
Their “Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact” published in Psychological Science1—headlined in the press as Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice—is a textbook example of confused data, unrecognized bias, and ignorance of statistics....
One would have guessed from the title, that the authors looked at how the scores on the intelligence questions correlated with the scores on the attitude and racism questions, taking into account the uncertainty in the reliability. You would be wrong.
They first modeled the intelligence questions to create one “latent” (unobserved) measure, called “g”. The uncertainty in creating “g” is then ignored in all subsequent analysis. They did the same for the attitude questions, creating a “latent” (actually unobserved) variable called “conservative ideology.” Uncertainty in its creation is also ignored. Then the individuals’ education and socioeconomic status and separately their parent’s socioeconomic status (which again were the results of models) were put into a model with “g” and “conservative ideology” to predict “racism” (the uncertainty of which, as was already said, was ignored).
yeah just like your global warming bs that everyone is backing off of.....talk about poor massaged information. Talk about low intelligence, oh, wait!! look who posted it....
Body Blow To German Global Warming Movement! Major Media Outlets Unload On “CO2 Lies!”
That’s what Germany’s leading daily Bild (see photo) wrote in its print and online editions today, on the very day that renowned publisher Hoffmann & Campe officially released a skeptic book – one written by a prominent socialist and environmental figure.
This is huge. More than I ever could have possibly imagined. And more is coming in the days ahead! The Bild piece was just the first of a series.
Mark this as the date that Germany’s global warming movement took a massive body blow.
Today, not one, but two of Germany’s most widely read news media published comprehensive skeptical climate science articles in their print and online editions, coinciding with the release of a major climate skeptical book, Die kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun).
Germany has now plunged into raucus discord on the heated topic of climate change
What has set it all off? One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”
Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Persuaded by Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science.
Conclusion: climate catastrophe is called off
The science was hyped. The book started hitting the bookshops today and has already hit no. 1 on the Amazon.de list for environment books. Indications show that it will climb very high in the overall bestseller charts. It’s published by a renowned publishing house and is now sending shock waves through the German climate science establishment. The first printing will produce 20,000 copies. I expect they will sell out rather quickly.
Today Germany’s national tabloid Bild (which has a whopping circulation of 16 million) devoted half of page 2 on an article called:
THE CO2 LIE
Renowned team of scientists claim the climate catastrophe is fear-mongering by politics“
The widely read Bild will follow with the rest of the series in the days ahead. In part I today Bild presents “What the IPCC of the UN doesn’t tell you.” Bild asks “what if the IPCC is wrong? Can we really blindly trust these experts? Are they really independent?”
He is typical of someone who came of age during the student protest movement of the late 1960s, and who fought against the chemical industry's toxic manufacturing plants in the 1970s. His party, Germany's center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), chose him as environment senator in the city-state of Hamburg, where he incurred the wrath of the environmental lobby by building a waste incineration plant, earning him the nickname "Feuerfritze" (Fire Fritz). He worked in industry after that, first for oil multinational Shell and then for wind turbine maker RePower, which he helped develop. Now, as the outgoing CEO of the renewable energy group RWE Innogy, he is about to embark on his next major battle. "I'm going to make enemies in all camps," he says.
He wants to break a taboo. "The climate catastrophe is not occurring," he writes in his book "Die Kalte Sonne" (The Cold Sun), published by Hoffmann and Campe, which will be in bookstores next week.
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.
Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.
The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.
In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.
When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
there's no point in even arguing with this guy, he picked his 1 article out of 1 million and he will site it over and over again when anyone contests him. Government is a bunch of worthless f**k ups to him and his ideology, yet the minute he can manipulate it, he brings out NASA as the final authority, meanwhile the guy who wrote that article for Yahoo has been a "hoaxist" forever, you can pull up every article the guy writes and see he does not look objectively.
too bad the article is from NASA the darlings of the Global Warming movement when the warmists were pushing the NASA data as proof positive for man made global warming. You know all that faulty NASA data the CRU used for their calculations and that all the NASA satellites were calibrated with to give credence to those CRU calculations. Another inconvenient fact.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
no, it doesn't. Stop pretending you have they intelligence to understand anything they have to say. It offends those of us who actually are capable of understanding things beyond a third grade level.
If both parties have to get a majority or at least a plurality to get an elected... and the majority is by definition not some small intellectual elite... how exactly are the democrats winning elections unless stupid people vote for them?
The reality is that stupid people are in both parties. You can't win an election without the stupid vote.
Do you honestly think the democrats are intellectually superior when your party makes a point of pandering to the welfare recipients in every election? By definition those are not going to be the great minds of the nation.
I'm not claiming the republicans are any smarter. I'm claiming instead that the very question of intelligence in popular politics is itself stupid.
Ironically, your support of this study betrays your own ignorance... if not outright stupidity. It can't be true for the same reason that 1+1 can't equal 11. It's logically impossible.
Now, might the left's tiny intellectual elite be slightly larger then the republican's tiny intellectual elite? Sure... but it's also irrelevant because it doesn't let you claim that either party is actually any smarter then the other. In both parties the majority of people are "average." Both parties have lots of stupid people. And both parties have a tiny intellectual elite. Both parties are a cross section of the general American public.
This would be obvious to you if you weren't clearly a bit of an idiot yourself. The article was probably targeted at you. These studies make stupid people feel better about themselves. They think "well, I'm with the smart people so I'm smart too"... only you're too dumb to realize that it's just propaganda. And even if it were entirely true you'd still be stupid. Being a democrat doesn't make you intelligent any more then buying an iPhone makes you cool. You'll still be the same fat bald man living in his mother's basement... with an iphone.
More partisan drivel. The only people with low intelligence are those who think congress and this president are doing an awesome job. Both parties suck. Move on.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Ah yes..I just love to watch the insecurity of leftists revealed by posting a dubious foreign study to convince themselves they are better than others.
And I'm sure that the brilliant diggers we see commenting here and their friends at OWS would absolutely skewer William M. Briggs for suggesting that this "study" is essentially worthless, right? After all, he's only an Adjunct Professor of Statistical Science at Cornell University.
"One would have guessed from the title, that the authors looked at how the scores on the intelligence questions correlated with the scores on the attitude and racism questions, taking into account the uncertainty in the reliability. You would be wrong.
They first modeled the intelligence questions to create one “latent” (unobserved) measure, called “g”. The uncertainty in creating “g” is then ignored in all subsequent analysis. They did the same for the attitude questions, creating a “latent” (actually unobserved) variable called “conservative ideology.” Uncertainty in its creation is also ignored. Then the individuals’ education and socioeconomic status and separately their parent’s socioeconomic status (which again were the results of models) were put into a model with “g” and “conservative ideology” to predict “racism” (the uncertainty of which, as was already said, was ignored)."
Why so angry? It's statistics. Nobody said 'atom is NOT the exception.' You just assumed it applied directly to you. Maybe it does, but that is not expressly stated.
Facts are facts. And the foreign origin just means they are outsiders and have nothing vested. If anything that makes it MORE reliable.
Right. And as Professor Briggs showed in detail, the conclusion reached in this study doesn't contain any.
As to the "foreign origin just means they are outsiders and have nothing vested" contention, it's not credible. Conservative vs liberal isn't a struggle limited to the United States.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
You're so quick to say that this article is full of lies and that Professor Briggs is pure fact.
I guess when you feel your lack of intelligence is going to be exposed you will believe whole heartedly (and post it repeatedly) in anything that can give you a glimmer of hope that you won't be exposed for the tool that you are.
"You're so quick to say that this article is full of lies and that Professor Briggs is pure fact. "
Could you be any more of a mental midget? By definition, people--such as Professor Briggs here--cannot be "pure fact", that's reserved for things. It's a matter of proper English, an exercise in which you've proven yourself woefully deficient time and again.
I find it funny "bro" that you obviously have nothing to attack me with, so you claim I need an education. My grammar is proper English, but that won't stop you from attacking me on that front.
What's the matter atom? You aren't clever enough to come up with anything of substance to attack me on? Are all your little jack off digg patriot friends unavailable to help you on that?
Are you not feeling like a man today, "bro"? It's pretty apparent from your comments that you aren't much of a man.
In order to "come up with anything of substance to attack you on", you'd have to actually write something of substance at some point. And you've proven time and again that you're incapable of doing so.
I realize that you were jerking yourself off to the false narrative this "study" presents, and that it's really, really difficult to accept the fact that someone like myself--a conservative--is clearly your intellectual superior. But really bro, it's not my fault...you lefties are all about Darwin; blame it on him.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
You are really angry about this. I understand, this is striking close to home, but again, facts are facts. The FIRST people to admit that the Republican base are "Low educated white males" are the republican political tacticians. This study just puts numbers to what everyone already knows.
Ok. Maybe if you were a little smarter or better educated you'd see that you were wrong... Of course, you probably would change your views if you were. Just saying...
"I realize that you were jerking yourself off to the false narrative this "study" presents, and that it's really, really difficult to accept the fact that someone like myself--a conservative--is clearly your intellectual superior"
This is funny on so many levels "bro".
There are many conservatives that I would consider my intellectual superior, but you are far from that. You are a sad pathetic little man.
I also find it funny that you sad pathetic rightwing pieces of trash feel the need to claim that you are intellectually superior than others here on digg. Do you feel the need to do it because you have to convince even yourself that you are? You have no confidence in yourself and rely on GOP talking points and what your trash little digg patriot friends tell you to think.
You really are a pathetic piece of trash, but if it makes you feel better about yourself feel free to tell everyone how intellectually superior you are. Apparently you need to do that.
"There are many conservatives that I would consider my intellectual superior..."
I agree, with the caveat that you also include progressives, independents, moderates, atheists, agnostics, religious people, felons, Scientologists, merchant marines, expats, the functionally illiterate and Snookie.
Basically bro, you (and your sockpuppet alter-egos) are a blithering idiot. So much so that you don't even realize how completely ignorant you are.
"Conservative vs liberal isn't a struggle limited to the United States."
Actually, it is. In other nations they are more honest and tie their right wing to the raciest and fascist policies they actually represent. This is really the only country that hasn't embraced the enlightenment, let alone the post-modern era. We are really in a unique situation here.
Broad-brush strokes make it easier for those with limited time, mental abilities or biases to build boxes for folks they disagree with in order not to associate them as their fellow humankind.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"Ah yes..I just love to watch the insecurity of leftists revealed by posting a dubious foreign study to convince themselves they are better than others."
While this is true in certain segments of the party the same thing could be said of the left.
Both parties include stupid people. The left can't pretend it's only a party of rocket scientists and post industrial philosophers when they enter every election sucking up to the welfare rolls or trying to bolster their numbers by attracting more undocumented immigrants to join their ranks.
Are there some inbred hillbillies in the republican party? Absolutely... there are only two parties for anyone to really join in this country. So they're going to join one or the other. Claiming one is for smart people is itself stupid.
There aren't enough smart people to be politically relevant. Smart tends to put you in the 10th percentile or higher.
So what does that mean mathematically.
See where I'm going here?
I just proved this stupid article wrong. With math.
Assuming the democrats had ALL the smart people they would still be outnumbered in their own party by stupid people at a ratio of 4 to 1.
Why did all those stupid people join the smart party if they're no more intelligent then the stupid republicans?
It's logically impossible for intelligence to play a factor in ideological choices between the two main american parties since both of them need to occasionally get a majority vote. The majority by definition is not the intellectual elite.
Now if we had ten or more political parties THEN it MIGHT be possible for one of them to be dominated by "smart people." But if there are only two and they have to get a majority... then we're not talking about smart people.
Furthermore, the claim is made further absurd by the left's endless pandering to welfare recipients which by definition are not going to be the great minds of our nation. Go through the rest of their constituent factions and you'll find few that are noted for their intelligence.
I don't say any of this to claim republicans are smarter. I wish they were but they're not. They're the same people with different opinions. The intrinsic intelligence of both factions is similar if not identical. One could make arguments about which party is wiser but I have no idea how you'd actually graph that.
As a member of the 99th percentile who happens to be a republican... I find the whole idea of this "study" to be a little sad. No one with any brains buys this argument for a second. It makes no sense.
I can only assume it's there to make stupid and insecure liberals feel better about themselves. This is again not to imply that all liberals are stupid or insecure... merely that this bit of fluff was put out to make the lackwits in their faction feel like they're members of the in crowd.
It's a fairly common bit of propaganda. Companies like to do that with their products. Much of the Apple revolution has been about it's perceived fashion. All the cool people have one, right? So if I get one then I'm one of the cool people!
So if I offered a study that claimed 2+2=9 you'd of course be honor bound to read that prior to declaring it crap?
here are your choices...
1. Karma is right.
2. Rogue is an idiot.
take your time.
You can't possibly be the smart party because it's impossible for either party to be the smart one. They're both composed of normal people. You can't win a popular election otherwise.
No, friend. 2+2=9 is irrational on it's face. But change the 'offensive' words to something less loaded. Say 'uneducated.' Are you denying the average republican is less educated than everyone else? Let's be blunt, because your own pendants race handicappers are. The republican base is the white, high school educated demographic. You know it's true, I know it's true. Karl Rove knows it's true (and not only admits it, but seems oddly proud of it). Why is is wrong to say it in a study?
You don't like it, but this study just puts the statistics to what everyone already knows.
I also just noticed someone dugg you up... proof positive that there are lots of idiots in the democratic party.
Now, I don't claim that there aren't plenty in the republican party. Neither side could win an election if they didn't have a fair number of twits. It's a numbers game. But honestly... you're trying to argue you're more intelligent while at the same time using a STUPID argument that only a STUPID person would not realize is STUPID.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Where did I say "This is wrong because I don't like it"? Nowhere. I said it's wrong because the intelligent are a minority in all human populations and the US decides elections by popular vote. There is no intelligence test on ballots so idiots can vote and idiots out number smart people.
As a result... if you were right and republicans were stupid... we'd win every election ever and you'd have no hope of ever winning one unless you somehow out breed the stupid people.
The logic is very clear. Do you honestly not grasp this or are you just being stubborn so you don't have to admit you were wrong? Because in either case that's pretty sad.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
First of all, nobody said ALL republicans are stupid. They said, right there in the headline, low intelligence and poorly informed. Low intelligence is hard to parse, but education and 'informed' tend to go hand in hand. And statistics aside, there is nobody in the world; left, right or center, that don't agree that if you are white, male and only have a high school or equivalent degree, you are probably republican. If you have ANY higher degree, you probably are not.
Forget the studies. Go to your nearest Republican political organization and ask who they target. Not only are the results of this well known, they are positively common knowledge.
Okay. So there are lots of stupid, uneducated, etc people in the democratic party. Right?
Okay. Why are stupid people voting for democrats if it's the party for smart people?
Take your time.
Maybe because intelligence didn't have anything to do with their affiliation. Twit.
As to education, that was not the claim made by this thread. It claimed low intelligence.
A man living in a mud hut 2000 years ago could a thousand times smarter then anyone today without attaining what you would consider an education.
So there isn't really a link between intelligence and education.
If your claim is merely education, then that changes the nature of the argument entirely.
For one thing, you're assuming that the best place to get higher education is in college. While that's true for the sciences, it isn't true for many professions. You're further assuming that this higher education had anything to do with their political choices. If they were democrats in grade school then it doesn't make sense to claim that it was their college education that made them democrats. You'd have to demonstrate some change over time. You could claim it at an earlier age if you were making the intelligence claim. But since you gave that up you have to show the education actually changing someone.
Furthermore, many studies have been done that try to match up intelligence with income. It has been found that there is some correlation but it is inconsistent. The best statistical measure of intelligence is actually wealth. Not income or education. Think of it this way, a stupid person can win the lotto ticket or have a high paying job that doesn't require brains. But stupid people lose their money, don't invest it well, and generally piss it all away.
So see which faction has more money.
Of course, if you win that argument and prove your faction has more money and therefore intelligence... then it will make your whole "1 versus 99" argument seem... well... stupid.
The whole nature of your argument is shallow. You're just sitting their masturbating on various stupid topics without even understanding them. If you want to come off as the intellectual superior you might want to attempt a detached intellectual approach. I doubt you're able to do that... but for future reference it would improve your credibility.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
True, but politics and ideology have little to do with each other. Also, though I don't have a study to back this up, I'm fairly sure you'll find people without an ideology at all average higher intelligence than people who do.
Ideology is a straightjacket that prevents you from acting honestly and rationally. It forces you to be less intellectually 'nimble.'
I would go on to say, now that I think about it, the not only are people of lower intelligence (on average, of course) more attracted to ideologies, adopting an ideology further lowers the intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to use data in one area to help you in another. It's about making connections, connecting dots. Once you believe in any one thing, you've limited that ability.
you think the US became prosperous because of the new deal? You fail at history, economics, and logic.
The US was prosperous before the new deal. Our highest national growth long preceded it. Furthermore, the new deal couldn't possibly have anything to do with future prosperity because it did nothing that would positively effect the economy. How does social security increase GDP? I mean, that's just stupid. I feel sorry for you. And then there's just the illogic of your robber baron comment. Do you know when the robber barons where? They were dealt with before the great depression even started let alone FDR's new deal. In fact, if you had bothered to do any research it is believed by many economists that FDR's meddling with the economy, his price controls, his interference with labor policy... made the Great Depression longer and deeper.
Your whole comment is just pathetically ignorant and uneducated. And you're still claiming to belong to an intellectual elite? Lolcats.
The north was an industrial powerhouse before the Civil War, retard. That was how we kicked your stupid democrat asses into the pavement and then rubbed sand in your eyes. And before you claim to have severed your bonds with the old democratic party... what is your opinion of Ulysses S Grant, General Sherman, and the rest of the Union Generals that the southern democrats tried to demonize after the war. With the exception of Lincoln who was merely assassinated, every single one of them was branded a drunk, a monster, a coward, or some other distasteful attribute by the democrats. And most modern democrats still hold many of these views despite residing in the north. And the Radical Republicans that pushed for the abolition of slavery... forgotten.
We're not as good at propaganda as your ilk. We have to give you that. But you rot everything you touch. If we gave you everything you ever wanted you'd just f' it up like everything else.
"In fact, if you had bothered to do any research it is believed by many economists that FDR's meddling with the economy, his price controls, his interference with labor policy... made the Great Depression longer and deeper."
Total bulls**t. It is believed by very few, well funded 'economists' owned by 'think tanks.' This all came from one paper from two California 'economists,' both already famous for the right wing beliefs, who came up with this. The rest was derivative of that deeply flawed and long debunked study. That is hardly 'many.' It is more like 'a few,' and they aren't of the quality that get invited to parties.
If you were honest you would admit that 'invited to parties' means "people respectable enough to be seen with professionally.'
And you are right, you didn't ask about that and I didn't answer (because you didn't ask). The answer, of course, it very little of the New deal dealt with that. What the new deal was about was creating good paying jobs and putting money in pockets. Money (demand) draws supply (business), and that is really all it too. Think of it as 'Demand side' economics. It's very much like 'supply side' economics... except that it actually works.
But to you (a liar) can't win when you are honest about the New Deal. So you try to defeat it on what it wasn't. You pile weakness on top of weakness.
"you think the US became prosperous because of the new deal? You fail at history, economics, and logic."
No. I KNOW the US became a superpower because of the New Deal. There is no question about that and never has been. Why do you think there are so many right-wing books and "studies" on the subject? Because when your position is 'the sky is not blue' you have to do a lot of work to keep people from simply looking up. 'cuz once they do... blueness everywhere.
"The US was prosperous before the new deal"
Not really, though now we have to go into what is prosperous. Is a big GNP prosperous? Rockefeller was VERY 'prosperous,' while the people starved. That's not prosperity. It may be Ron Paul's wet dream, but it was a nightmare for 99% of the people in the system. You talk about a gun to the head -- that was the time there were guns to your head! Work for your pittance or die. Children were chained to their workstations. You would get underpaid in company money that was only good at company stores and if you DARE talk about unionizing you got your head broke -- and even the hired goon who broke your head was underpaid. America was not prosperous before the New Deal ended all that. That's why it was called the new deal.
"
Your whole comment is just pathetically ignorant and uneducated. And you're still claiming to belong to an intellectual elite? Lolcats."
That's just a comment. And an ignorant one at that. Do you anything actually to say here?
"The north was an industrial powerhouse before the Civil War, retard"
When you are talking to someone who is obviously running circles around you it behooves to address them as MISTER retard, thank you.
And the North was industrial prior to the civil war. I don't recall that I said otherwise. But a powerhouse? Compared to what? London? I don't think so. But compared to Atlanta or somewhere, sure. It was WAY more industrial than those areas. I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here. Or if you are just bickering for the sake of bickering, which is ok. I write mostly for the lurking audience, not the person who doesn't want to learn.
"That was how we kicked your stupid democrat asses into the pavement and then rubbed sand in your eyes."
I am completely lost on what we are even talking about here. I don't recall that, and prior to the Civil War, and after it as well, the democrats were the 'conservative' party. (I quote that because the term didn't even come up till Calhoon coined it. Though there were 'conservative' parties in Europe.)
I've lost the path here, what are we talking about?
"what is your opinion of Ulysses S Grant, General Sherman, and the rest of the Union Generals that the southern democrats tried to demonize after the war."
Uh, I think they were the guys that finally won the war. The South hated them and love Mechellin (sp? Sorry, I'm not bothering to google anything, because you are off on a tangent and I don't see what this has to do with anything. I'm not even sure you meant to post all this to me) because he just sat on his hans and let Lee run wild. But when Lincoln fired him and put Grant in charge, the war was pretty much over at that point. Because Grant was finally willing to actually fight. Lee did pretty well before there was a real war, but once Grant was put on the job it was all over but the battles.
What has this ancient history have to do with anything?
"And most modern democrats still hold many of these views despite residing in the north. "
Actually, they don't. But northerns are more honest about the flaws of their warriors than the south. You would think Lee was a benighted saint. Northerners tend not to play the canonization game.
"And the Radical Republicans that pushed for the abolition of slavery... forgotten."
VERY TRUE and not forgotten. Neither is the fact the two parties switched ethos between FDR era and and the LBJ era. But I"m still not seeing where this is going.
"We're not as good at propaganda as your ilk"
Who is we? If you are talking about the South you have got to be f**king kidding me. Margret Mitchel? Please, there is NOTHING but propaganda about that era from the South. Nothing. Every single aspect of life have been 're-imagined' by those that would turn the Confederacy into "The Lost Cause." It's all a total lie and it's even taught in some Northern Schools.
I like that link (it came though fine, btw) thank you for it. But I still don't see what, if anything, this whole screed had to do with.
No, friend. I understand you've chosen to back a horse that can't win, but you don't just get to end the race you chose to run just because you are in last place.
Back to the point. Very little. Politics, especially Republican politics, are more of a sporting event. You root for a team. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of dems that are the same way. But no, look at your own posts here. Clearly you are 100% wrong on this subject, but you won't admit it. You don't want to give the 'other team' these points. Has nothing to do with ideology. Never did.
Be honest. Think back to your own political awakening. You were a republican first, and whatever your 'ideology' is second. It's a sport, not an ideology.
You have a valid point, particularly since you make it plain that it is on both sides. However, I don't believe you can read karma's mind so I think it is unfair to claim he is one of those you disdain. Could you have not just made your point without directing it as a personal attack?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I don't disdain Karma, but I am kicking him pretty hard to get him to think. I don't care if he gets pissed off at me, as long as he is pissed for for real reasons, not blind dogma.
If you honestly think the democrats are any different then you're delusional on top of being stupid.
As to my ideological awakening, dead wrong. My parents taught me values. I didn't know what a republican was until I was twelve or something. And even then I didn't really relate to them.
My choice of affiliation has more to do with the democrats not sharing my values then it does with the republicans advancing them. THe republicans are not at least actively trying to destroy things I care about. So for all their faults they are the lesser of evils to me.
I do not view either side as being good or evil.
And if you were honest, which you won't be... you'd acknowledge that there is a great deal more hatred and emotion on your side then there is on mine.
Very simply, all I want is to be left alone. Give me that, and I'll vote for you.
Try to enslave me and I'd sooner join the armies of hell to eat your children then submit.
That's where I am. I don't care about the republicans. They're a tool. A means to my end. All I want is to be left be. Acknowledge my personal freedom and get out of my face... and I'll honor and defend you in return. Try to oppress me and I'll cut your nuts off with rusty pliers.
"If you honestly think the democrats are any different then you're delusional on top of being stupid." -- quoted from you
"Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of dems that are the same way." -- quoted from me.
"As to my ideological awakening, dead wrong. My parents taught me values. I didn't know what a republican was until I was twelve or something."
Very dubious claim, but I'll buy if that's what you are selling. It's not impossible that it's true. My own didn't come about till I was in my late 30's. But I know I'm the exception, not the rule.
"And if you were honest, which you won't be... you'd acknowledge that there is a great deal more hatred and emotion on your side then there is on mine."
I will be honest, and your wrong. Very wrong. But I see where you make that mistake. You feel entitled to things that have been granted you and that pisses off those of us who have to pay for it. So you DO see a lot of anger, it's just completely justified anger. On the other side you see irrational, hate based anger. You claim you want honesty, there it is. I won't back away from the facts on that.
"Very simply, all I want is to be left alone."
Very simply, you want what we have built for you. Your sense of entitlement is AMAZING! You think just because it was there when you were born that somehow exempts you form paying for it. It doesn't, and you better get used to it, because the way we've been doing things is no longer acceptable.
"Try to enslave me and I'd sooner join the armies of hell to eat your children then submit."
Try to tell me again which side has the irrational anger?
"Acknowledge my personal freedom and get out of my face... and I'll honor and defend you in return."
Keep paying for the infrastructure and pickup up my tabs when I welsh on them and I'll honor and defend you in return. There, fixed that for you.
"Try to oppress me and I'll cut your nuts off with rusty pliers."
If you had any idea how unimpressive I find that, you would find a way to not post it. I've dealt with a lot of tough guys in the real world, and I usually find them wanting. Imagine how seriously I take internet threats.
first, we built this country if not more then the democrats then just as much. So claiming that your party needs tribute to compensate it for it's works is asinine. The republicans built the great industrial north. Not the democrats. The democrats in fact were responsible for the sorry state of affairs the south was in when the republicans inherited it.
And since we switched territory what has become of the great industrial north? It's rotted. And what has become of the once primitive and backward south? It's increasingly becoming the new industrial powerhouse of America. You want to know what YOU built? Look at Detroit after 1970. That's you. You turn everything you touch to crap. And then expect to be thanked for it.
Second, no I don't want what the government built for free. You're not like some greedy corporation always trying to sell me a new product I don't want. And then if I say I don't want it, you put a gun against my head, force me to buy it, and then claim I want it for free if I tell you I don't want to pay.
I DO NOT WANT IT. Very simply, why don't you set up your services so they're voluntary and those that sign up for them pay for them. See who actually wants what you're selling. Your whole system would collapse overnight because the reality is that people only want your product if someone else pays for it. And no one would pay for it unless forced at gun point. I do not want your service. Stop offering it and/or stop forcing me to pay for it. I don't want it. I am not against all taxes or all services. But any tax or service that does not benefit all Americans or is otherwise indispensable or does not otherwise produce a NET profit should be disbanded. You're robbing peter to buy votes from paul. It's beyond immoral. It's outright corrupt.
Third, as to irrational anger. I didn't say anger captain strawman. I said hate. I don't hate you. Dems have the market on that cornered. I do fear you. But I fear you in the way a terminal patient fears cancer. You don't hate the cancer. You just don't want to be eaten by it.
That's what your political faction is to us. Invasive, malignant... cancer. Spreading... implacable... destructive... terminal. You'd turn this country into what the Greeks are going through if we gave you free reign. THere are more then a few states that if they were countries they'd be in worse shape then greece. Obama's home state is currently writing bad checks... Consider how stupid that is... Chicago is a very wealthy city. It makes a lot of money. And even with all that profit to feed upon its never enough for you is it. You're just like a some rapacious colony of rodents that eat up all the resources, breed entirely out of control, and then cannibalization each other in some horror show of self destruction when you can't borrow or tax your way out of the problem anymore.
So again, we don't hate you. We have tried to compromise with you. We've repeatedly been told that if we just give you one more thing you won't ask for anything else. But you always betray us... it's never enough.
We're done playing with you. Your whole ideology has been negotiating in bad faith for generations. You're cheats, liars, and charlatans. I hold you in contempt... but I don't hate you. You don't know what you're doing. You're so blinded by your ideology that you don't see how destructive and self defeating everything you do is in the end. Everything you build will come to ruin... and sooner rather then later the more power and money you get. Your ideology is a parasite killing its host. If kept small and limited you'd be tolerable forever. But the larger you get the more you degrade the host's internal systems and the sooner you bring about your own end.
Finally, as to "internet threats".. the statement was clearly metaphorical... it was a rhetorical device, I have to point that out to you because you have problems acknowledging the obvious. It is ironic that you presume to be the intellectual superior when you've failed at every juncture to grasp even the simplest concept.
"first, we built this country if not more then the democrats then just as much."
I was't really talking about the democrats, but since you pressed that issue… Yes, it was the democrats who made America. We went from a back woods nation in the robber baron area to the worlds first superpower during the early years of the war. That was clearly and indisputably the New Deal. So while I wasn't really intentionally giving democrats credit (lately they have failed us -- though complicity -- almost as bad as the republicans. Almost.), they certainly deserve it. Every moment of your life, every time you flip on a light, drive you car or (if you live in the south) crap indoors, if you weren't a total ingrate you would thank FDR specifically and the democratic party in general. Republicans fought the building of America since they were… well, since they were democrats, as they were in the Civil War era.
"So claiming that your party needs tribute to compensate it for it's works is asinine."
I don't know who 'my party' is. I'm talking about the workers, the engineers and the thinking men who turned us from a backwater to a great nation. When I say 'we' I'm meaning the HONEST, BILL PAYING, WORKING men and women of this nation. The city builders, the culture builders and the people who make and pay for the stuff we ALL use.
"The republicans built the great industrial north. Not the democrats. The democrats in fact were responsible for the sorry state of affairs the south was in when the republicans inherited it."
I have know idea where you found an orifice containing that to pull out of it, but it's not even remotely correct. I don't really have anything to say other than you can't just make s**t up and call it history. Smart people know history and will correct you without my help. Get some education.
"And since we switched territory what has become of the great industrial north? It's rotted. And what has become of the once primitive and backward south? It's increasingly becoming the new industrial powerhouse of America. You want to know what YOU built? Look at Detroit after 1970. That's you. You turn everything you touch to crap. And then expect to be thanked for it."
The north tanked during the Reagan administration. Before him it was no prize, but there was plenty of good paying work (though the environment was a DISASTER - the River in Cleveland was so polluted at actually caught fire several times. So if you want to actually blame the democrats for something that is actually their fault, there is that. Of course, being wiser and more experienced, it's they that are the environmental party now.) But it was the destruction of the union work forces that so damaged the industrial back bone of this country, and left us in the sorry, republican made state we find ourselves in today.
And, seriously? You are PROUD of the South now? You are all underpaid, under worked, and despite all our problems we are STILL paying for your welfare states! The global warming you fools don't believe in is destroying texas, the industry regulation you don't believe in has turned the gulf of Mexico into one big oil toilet. Worst of all, instead of learning from the errors of the north, you are stupidly repeating them. Been to, say, New Orleans or Tampa lately? It's an industrial s**thole -- at least until the next hurricane washes away some of the filth because you dumb f**ks are too stupid to listen to them damn New England Jew intellectuals and build you sea walls to adequate, modern standards.
"Second, no I don't want what the government built for free. You're not like some greedy corporation always trying to sell me a new product I don't want. And then if I say I don't want it, you put a gun against my head, force me to buy it, and then claim I want it for free if I tell you I don't want to pay."
If you don't want it stay off the roads, stay off the power grid stay off the internet, and go back to s**tting outside. The problem is you DO want it. You use it every day -- but like that assh**e friend from high school who meets you for dinner, when the bill comes his billfold is always in his other pants. Well we've bought you so many dinners we can't afford it any more. Now you can either pay, or or go hungry. Now you are saying "what? I don't get to eat? I never asked to be fed, but now I'm entitled to it. I won't pay, but I still want.
Want you you want. The free ride is over.
"I DO NOT WANT IT. Very simply, why don't you set up your services so they're voluntary and those that sign up for them pay for them."
I'm actually kind of with you on that. My objection really isn't that you don't want to pay… it's that you still want the same rights and benefits as those of us who do pay. For example, if you would tattoo on your forehead "I did not pay for the mandated health care." I would be fine letting you off not paying -- or benefiting -- from it. That means, if you are injured, you pay the anmulance driver. Cash, you don't have that cash on you? Sorry, the 'go and get them' ambulance service is only for those who paid for it. They leave you on the street and if you die from a compound fracture that could have easily been treated, no problem. It was a service you chose not to avail yourself of. I have not problem with that.
The problem is, when you DO have that compound fracture, you are suddenly going to feel entitled to the service. You are going to say "what kind of civilization leaves a man to die in the street?" The answer, of course, is one of your own making,
"See who actually wants what you're selling."
Everybody. Including you.
"Your whole system would collapse overnight because the reality is that people only want your product if someone else pays for it."
EXACTLY MY WORDS. YOU want all the benefits of being an American -- you just feel I should be paying your bills you. I feel you are a f**king freeloader who we have carried WAY too long.
"And no one would pay for it unless forced at gun point."
Are you a broken record now? Stop using all the services and we'll talk!
"first, we built this country if not more then the democrats then just as much."
I was't really talking about the democrats, but since you pressed that issue… Yes, it was the democrats who made America. We went from a back woods nation in the robber baron area to the worlds first superpower during the early years of the war. That was clearly and indisputably the New Deal. So while I wasn't really intentionally giving democrats credit (lately they have failed us -- though complicity -- almost as bad as the republicans. Almost.), they certainly deserve it. Every moment of your life, every time you flip on a light, drive you car or (if you live in the south) crap indoors, if you weren't a total ingrate you would thank FDR specifically and the democratic party in general. Republicans fought the building of America since they were… well, since they were democrats, as they were in the Civil War era.
"So claiming that your party needs tribute to compensate it for it's works is asinine."
I don't know who 'my party' is. I'm talking about the workers, the engineers and the thinking men who turned us from a backwater to a great nation. When I say 'we' I'm meaning the HONEST, BILL PAYING, WORKING men and women of this nation. The city builders, the culture builders and the people who make and pay for the stuff we ALL use.
"The republicans built the great industrial north. Not the democrats. The democrats in fact were responsible for the sorry state of affairs the south was in when the republicans inherited it."
I have know idea where you found an orifice containing that to pull out of it, but it's not even remotely correct. I don't really have anything to say other than you can't just make s**t up and call it history. Smart people know history and will correct you without my help. Get some education.
"And since we switched territory what has become of the great industrial north? It's rotted. And what has become of the once primitive and backward south? It's increasingly becoming the new industrial powerhouse of America. You want to know what YOU built? Look at Detroit after 1970. That's you. You turn everything you touch to crap. And then expect to be thanked for it."
The north tanked during the Reagan administration. Before him it was no prize, but there was plenty of good paying work (though the environment was a DISASTER - the River in Cleveland was so polluted at actually caught fire several times. So if you want to actually blame the democrats for something that is actually their fault, there is that. Of course, being wiser and more experienced, it's they that are the environmental party now.) But it was the destruction of the union work forces that so damaged the industrial back bone of this country, and left us in the sorry, republican made state we find ourselves in today.
And, seriously? You are PROUD of the South now? You are all underpaid, under worked, and despite all our problems we are STILL paying for your welfare states! The global warming you fools don't believe in is destroying texas, the industry regulation you don't believe in has turned the gulf of Mexico into one big oil toilet. Worst of all, instead of learning from the errors of the north, you are stupidly repeating them. Been to, say, New Orleans or Tampa lately? It's an industrial s**thole -- at least until the next hurricane washes away some of the filth because you dumb f**ks are too stupid to listen to them damn New England Jew intellectuals and build you sea walls to adequate, modern standards.
"Second, no I don't want what the government built for free. You're not like some greedy corporation always trying to sell me a new product I don't want. And then if I say I don't want it, you put a gun against my head, force me to buy it, and then claim I want it for free if I tell you I don't want to pay."
If you don't want it stay off the roads, stay off the power grid stay off the internet, and go back to s**tting outside. The problem is you DO want it. You use it every day -- but like that assh**e friend from high school who meets you for dinner, when the bill comes his billfold is always in his other pants. Well we've bought you so many dinners we can't afford it any more. Now you can either pay, or or go hungry. Now you are saying "what? I don't get to eat? I never asked to be fed, but now I'm entitled to it. I won't pay, but I still want.
Want you you want. The free ride is over.
"I DO NOT WANT IT. Very simply, why don't you set up your services so they're voluntary and those that sign up for them pay for them."
I'm actually kind of with you on that. My objection really isn't that you don't want to pay… it's that you still want the same rights and benefits as those of us who do pay. For example, if you would tattoo on your forehead "I did not pay for the mandated health care." I would be fine letting you off not paying -- or benefiting -- from it. That means, if you are injured, you pay the anmulance driver. Cash, you don't have that cash on you? Sorry, the 'go and get them' ambulance service is only for those who paid for it. They leave you on the street and if you die from a compound fracture that could have easily been treated, no problem. It was a service you chose not to avail yourself of. I have not problem with that.
The problem is, when you DO have that compound fracture, you are suddenly going to feel entitled to the service. You are going to say "what kind of civilization leaves a man to die in the street?" The answer, of course, is one of your own making,
"See who actually wants what you're selling."
Everybody. Including you.
"Your whole system would collapse overnight because the reality is that people only want your product if someone else pays for it."
EXACTLY MY WORDS. YOU want all the benefits of being an American -- you just feel I should be paying your bills you. I feel you are a f**king freeloader who we have carried WAY too long.
"And no one would pay for it unless forced at gun point."
Are you a broken record now? Stop using all the services and we'll talk!
" I do not want your service."
Fine. Then stop f**king using them. Jesus.
Stop offering it and/or stop forcing me to pay for it.
Bulls**t. I'm not a freeloading crybaby. I accept the ambulance service. I proudly drive in the interstates. Why should I live like an animal because you are you don't want it? Who are you? Nobody. The whole does not bow to you. Sorry, you aren't anywhere NEAR that important.
"I don't want it.
You keeps saying that… on the computer. Using the power grid, strung by union workers, build by ME! Over the internet, an extension of the military and university systems, designed by government workers and build by union workers.. And you seem immune to the laughable irony of your position. This is why Ron Paul doesn't get taken seriously. Like you he keeps delivering punchlines then wonders why everyone thinks he's a comedian.
You keep using there very things we are talking about to tell us you don't want them. You don't want them, stop using them! Then, and only then do you even have a case to build. But right now, while you are still a parasite… You are going to pay.
"I am not against all taxes or all services."
I know that. You are very happy to use things built by my taxes. It's not the taxes you object to is that fact that the rest of us do not recognize your august superiority and have the temerity to think that in addition to using our stuff, you should also contribute to it. Believe me, we are VERY well aware that you LOVE the benefits of taxes and services. You just can't seem to understand why an esteemed person such as yourself should pay the same as us 'worker bees.'
Trust me Karma, you have made yourself ABUNDANTLY CLEAR on that point.
"But any tax or service that does not benefit all Americans or is otherwise indispensable or does not otherwise produce a NET profit should be disbanded. You're robbing peter to buy votes from paul. It's beyond immoral. It's outright corrupt."
That is the dumbest thing ever. There is no agency making money on the interstate system. It's a 'net profit loss' to the gov't. But it is the single greatest boon to American business that has ever been created. Widgets made in 'A' can now be sold in 'B.' How much is that worth? Untold billions. And, since we have an income tax, some of that money does come back, but I doubt its as much as paid. But it's more than enough to keep it up. The benefit we all get just in increase prosperity is worth ten times what we pay for it.
Seriously, this is pretty basic stuff.
"Third, as to irrational anger. I didn't say anger captain strawman. I said hate."
You actually said: hatred and emotion. But I'll give it too you even though you clearly meant anger. You are lying, but I have way more rope than I need to hang you already.
"I don't hate you."
You should more than not hate me. You should love me. I'm the reason you don't crap outdoors. I'm your personal Cayman Islands bank account.
"I do fear you. But I fear you in the way a terminal patient fears cancer."
You should fear a little. Your whole 'something for nothing' way of life is coming to an end. But don't fear me, fear Issac Newton. It's the laws of thermodynamics you have a beef with, not me. You can not get something for nothing -- ever. And when you think you are, sooner or later that reservoir that you are tapping is going to dry up. I fear we are nearing that day. But I'm no threat to you, unless you think stopping getting a free gift every day is a 'threat.' I think it's just a changing of the billing arrangements. I wouldn't be the least bit annoyed if you weren't constantly telling me how entitled you are the fruits of my work.
"That's what your political faction is to us. Invasive, malignant... cancer. Spreading... implacable... destructive... terminal."
Nice image, but a bad metaphor is as bad as a leaky screwdriver. (Yuck, yuck)
I'm out of time. This took twenty minutes. Maybe I'll finish tomorrow, but I think the writing is on the wall of how this is going.
What a mess. Digg sucks now. Anyway, read what you can, and I'm sorry for the way it's arranged. I wrote in one field but had to cut and paste and cut and past to make it post.
Your theory is sound but you have the parties backwards. Only conservatives and engaged in real debate about what it means to be a Republican, and conservative - we have seen that in the primaries. We have seen that with the Tea Party (which the establishment Republicans dislike intensely as they took out some big name Republicans in the quest to introduce fiscal sanity even if it meant losing a few primaries).
The Democrats are a Team. They cheer only for the team, unthinking as to an idea on its own merits - they do what is best for the Team, not all of the players on both sides.
That is the saddest part because Democrats used to be able to have disagreements, no longer - it's what drove LIiberman out of the party (and boy does the Team HATE him for that!)
Oh, I just remembered you said FDR stopped the trusts and I responded that that happened before he was even elected.
Well... I just remembered it was TEDDY Roosevelt that busted the trusts and not FDR. Wrong Roosevelt... Guess what Teddy was... A republican.
If you had the honor of a sewer rat, you'd eat crow and admit how completely ignorant of history you are... as well as how ignorant you are of BASIC economics.
I don't remember saying that, but just in case: in the unlikely event I got that wrong, I whole heatedly admit it. I never said I was beyond mistakes, I'm just above LIES. Would that you were too.
And as a non-liar, can can not meet you all the way at 'completely ignorant of history' as that would clearly be a lie. But IF I made an error, and you point it out to me, I will amend it.
Of course, it actually has to be an error, not just some s**t you made up.
gaia242Feb 12, 2012
This quote says it all. "Don't take my word for it. Listen to what two former Republican ideologues, David Frum and Mike Lofgren, have been saying. Frum warns that "conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics". The result is a "shift to ever more extreme, ever more fantasy-based ideology" which has "ominous real-world consequences for American society".
Modern day conservatives honestly live in an alternative universe...
mtownFeb 13, 2012
"Modern day conservatives honestly live in an alternative universe..."
You can see evidence of this on this site alone. Remember yesterday when Norman was claiming that gays already had equal marriage rights in the US? It's so far from the truth it's ridiculous, yet he repeated it over and over as if he was trying to reassure himself that his invented reality was real.
gaia242Feb 13, 2012
Hi mtown. There is a lot of evidence here, you are absolutely correct.
As for that pants load norman, i dont even bother to read most of what he regurgitates on here. Most of what the self professed Digg PAIDtriots post here is verbatim modern conservative talking points, if not simple name calling. Not that they have the market cornered there, but ya:-)
elcalrissianFeb 13, 2012
the digg patriotis got paid!!!?!
Yeesh. All this time, im just a normal dude, who likes to question the status quo. I was called a DP, but never got paychecks.
Oh well, I guess that means im an actual person with Right of Center beliefs on Digg who is NOT part of a major Conspiracy????
Im sorry, but the DP-fearing Libs and the Society of Flat Earthers seem to be on the same page of crazy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stevanoskiFeb 13, 2012
While a patriot, who loves his country, and on Digg I'm not an official DP. If I could get paid would love to find out how?
skyislandFeb 13, 2012
Not quite.. Because those denying global warming use propaganda and delay action to keep atmosphere from entering a feedback loop involving release of naturally sequestered carbon which can end discussion by force of temperature increase on all Earth's environmental systems.
Effectively the damage is done and is just about set in stone due to destruction of Resolution at Bali, Cop13 seeking action plan engaged by 2012.. Fox engaged in destruction of news coverage of Copenhagen Summit Cop15 and the deliberate spreading of doubt where there was none and now it may be too late to stop Earth from exceeding 2C temperature rise with certain consequence.
The action of the great unwashed masses of brainwashed fools won't undo the consequence of the harm done now.
superkendallFeb 14, 2012
The people "denying" that the warmest alarmists have any case to make actually show trumped up results from your alarmist charlatan "scientists" and real data from what the earth is actually doing.
Heaven forbid that real data enter the discussion! That's Not Fair to you and your fellow cultists!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elcalrissianFeb 14, 2012
Ok.
History shows cyclical temprature means, which we're currently on trend with.
We had a 'low' global mean in the early 1800's.....wouldnt that indicate we're on a general upswing currently?
current monitoring data only takes up about 200 years of 4.5 billion in Weather on Earth, any extrapolation is inherently inaccurate.
I take that Basket, and say: "Global Temps historically swing up and down on different time intervals, from a few hundred to a few thousand."
You take your data, from Parking lot Thermometers and about 50 years of accurate instruments.....
.......
And you say, without question - MAN WARMED THE WORLD< THEREFORE TAX EVERYONE
Basically, while both sides look at accurate data.....only the Liberal Climate Zealots are stupid enough to say "The Other Data Is Wrong". Biased, unscientific liars.
celticowboyFeb 15, 2012
@elcalrissian - you show little knowledge of science data gathering and analysis. It is more than 200 years of instrument data - there are geological data, ice-core and tree-ring and other data sources to be studied. Yes, we are on a natural upswing (and there are downswing periods) in a general warming trend that started with the end of the last ice age. What the data shows is that current trends include radical short-term shifts from low to high temps, extreme weather events, and shifts of wind and water currents in unprecedented levels. And since over 95% of climate scientists, oceanographers, biologists, and other relevant scientists agree, along with NASA, the Pentagon, all major university science departments, the National Atmospherics and Meteorological Administration, and European, Australian, and other international counterparts all agree, your claim of "liberal climate change zealots" is more than a bit misleading. BTW, once you use the term "liberal" as a pejorative, you lose all intellectual credibility and are exposed as just another right-wing tool.
elcalrissianFeb 17, 2012
celt
Im glad you pointed out the timescale I inferred in my earlier post.
Last ice age to now is about, oh...10,000 yrs. 200 of hardcore, actual data.
I'd hope you concede, say, 25 years of paved surfaces covering substantial areas, especially urban areas? Just the physical concrete, a slab lying there, absorbing and reflecting (high albetio); and the People, living beings, living in concetrated urban areas throughout the world. Collected heat in the People, the concrete.
The cities, just siting there with Zero power, create global warming through Concrete and People.
- How much of that are you assuming CO2 is doing now?
Bogs, undersea natural gas fissures, volcanic activity......
even if it's 5% of global warming, CO2 the other 95%.....
Its all just 200 years over 10,000....I trust the Geologic records.
We heat the Earth. We also buy Whole Foods and Priuses. Capitalism has an Incentive to be Green. US. Theres a market for Solar, wind, and we're exploiting it....kinda. The EPA and Government is good in small doses, but today it's a deluge.
The government isnt good at exploiting anything other than it's people. Let Business and Capitalism create the Green Energy of tomorrow.
gaia242Feb 13, 2012
Whatever you say cupcake:-)
JustSayNoPartyFeb 14, 2012
When you figure out the system, let me know. I'll take some extra $$$.
starmanjonesFeb 13, 2012
i'm sure he'd tell you that it is perfectly legal for gays to marry a member of the opposite sex. :D thats how they are.
gaia242Feb 13, 2012
HAHA! touche Sir touche!
concusionFeb 13, 2012
yep, they will cling to the smallest shred of truth they can manipulate that fits their view and repeat over and over and over.
killersquirelFeb 13, 2012
"yep, they will cling to the smallest shred of truth they can manipulate that fits their view and repeat over and over and over."
It's really quite pathetic isn't it? Just how many times does atomheartmother have to post a link to a blog that he claims disputes this article? Posting it more than once just seems desperate.
ieatskunkFeb 13, 2012
This forum must be the digg equivalent of the town mob: Loud, big and driven by fear and ignorance.
gaia242Feb 13, 2012
You mean like CPAC?
Closed AccountFeb 13, 2012
Yeah Im pretty sure it still unlawful in most of the US to marry as a same-sex couple, which could not even be more of a fact.
reverantFeb 14, 2012
What? they absolutely equal marriage rights in the US.
Any gay man has exactly the same right to marry a woman that I do.
Same rights across the board.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
davidg11Feb 13, 2012
Awesome to see this digg circle-jerk from liberals basking in how much more intelligent they think they are.
There is social/moral conservatism and there is fiscal conservatism.
Try not to lump both categories as one as the same.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elcalrissianFeb 13, 2012
Woah Woah.....hold it there.
You progressed into multiple levels of free thought there, explaining that there COULD be some lee-way?
You MUST Be a Conservative, liberals I know cant comprehend anything not said by Rachel Maddow.
So, you're saying, for example, I can be a pot smoking, hybrid driving, commune living, charity giving person, who wants to stop illegal immigration, see the positive affect of private welfare, and stop income based taxation?
We just seriously blew the heads off of some Liberals.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gaia242Feb 13, 2012
Gay Marriage is Legal in Washington. Bet this just steams your clams:-)
superkendallFeb 14, 2012
Why would it? I fully support gay marriage and I am a conservative. There are MANY other conservatives that feel the same way. But we are also fiscally prudent, where you are not... only conservatives are acting rationally and with compassion at this point, instead of wholly partisan as you are (since you cannot even comprehend someone could have mixed positions! That's like DESEGREGATION of thought and cannot be tolerated!)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 14, 2012
Wow. Looks like you didn't read the article (again). Why not?
JustSayNoPartyFeb 14, 2012
Exactly. Sign me up for the fiscal conservative side. Right now, Santorum is upholding the Social side and I suppose Romney goes in the Fiscal Category. Hard to get excited over either. But it does show the stark divide in the Republican party.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
abdulnFeb 13, 2012
Umm, yeah, I think everything stated here is true about both sides of the aisle. Liberals and neo-cons (almost the same thing frankly) both live in their own bubble and rely on their own truths to justify their ignorant beliefs.
Plus, you are only selecting quotes of convenience to make your point. You discount conservatives intelligence and knowlege... Yet you using the statements of a couple of conservatives to prove your point... That's just silly and makes your point contradictory.
If you have a point that has merit, you should be able to support it using simple independent thought, arguments, and actual facts.
ThinkForYourselfFeb 13, 2012
I expose myself to political content regardless of it's left/right affiliation. I will say that I have never seen any conservative media outlet say something as ludicrous as "Liberalism thrives on low intelligence...". There is a simple explanation for this divisive article. The average liberal may indeed be more educated than the average conservative. It's no secret that most institutions of higher education predominantly lean left.
Let's be clear on one thing though, education is not intelligence. I have known some uneducated people who are very intelligent and also some highly educated people who could not reason logically if their lives depended on it. The play on words in this article is insulting and it's sad how readily many of the people in here grab onto it to hate on conservatives. What is also sad is that most of the conservatives I talk to believe that liberals live in an alternate universe based on misinformation from education and corporate news shows.
Why does it have to be a hate fest between liberals and conservatives? Why can't we disagree on some issues without hating each other? I'm sure many of you have brothers, sisters, mothers or fathers with whom you disagree with but you would probably defend them if someone said they had "low intelligence" instead of taking any chance to say "yeah they are so stupid they don't even live in reality." We need to work together because we are all in this s**t together.
elcalrissianFeb 13, 2012
Yes.
Its the Names that kill us.
We preach identity and yet respect to races.
We teach each other to say, he's Japanese, but human first. The good people, absent of their (D) and (R) identies - all wholeheartedly Know this...Human First.
look, we, the Good, all WANT to help [the homeless/down trodden/economically and physically disabled]. Some only give through taxes. Most give in more direct ways.
but THEN...Ideologoies! Name em up, 'zing it out, Welcome to the 3rd grade playground!
While we ire to recognize the Human in the Indian woman, we forget it when trying to speak with Countrymen, with a common goal to make s**t better.
ThinkForYourselfFeb 14, 2012
"look, we, the Good, all WANT to help [the homeless/down trodden/economically and physically disabled]."
And that's why I get pissed when I read some of the posts on Digg. This situation is very similar to someone who is racist because they were brought up in a racist family and not because every minority they met treated them badly.
I have both liberal and conservative friends. They are all good people (and all intelligent btw). I used to be guilty too, hating what the TV and websites like Digg told me to hate. Then one day I stopped to think, "my liberal and conservative friends are not unique, most people want what's best for the country and society even if they disagree on some issues." So why do I hate on them so much?
People need to ask themselves that question and determine if it is from personal experience or because they have been taught to hate.
gaia242Feb 14, 2012
Well.... most of the conservative "people" here are vehemently opposed to allowing me to marry the man of my dreams (yes that means im a gay man). So as a far as i'm concerned they can go eat s**t and die....the sooner the better in fact.
Once you are on the receiving end of their unending hate, it gets much easier to give em what they give. Something about the only thing evil needs to success is for good men (and women) to do nothing. I refuse to do nothing!
That all being said, I do agree with you that we are all in this together (may sound contradictory but life IS full of them). We are all Americans, we all bleed when you prick us (not a butt sex joke either), and that blood is red.
In a better world conservative hate-mongers would stop trying to divide us in order to win elections (best example was 2004 election).
Hope this helps answer your question about why the vitriol.
ThinkForYourselfFeb 14, 2012
My family and friends are all conservative, I have never known any conservative that hated gays or wished them any ill (well maybe one in a small town in TN.) They just get scared that their children will be influenced to experiment with homosexuality. That's really all it's about for most of them, they want straight kids and they don't believe that you are born gay. Of course they will tell you they don't agree with same-sex marriages because, if they didn't, it would be like a liberal saying they don't hate Bush. But most of them don't personally care if 2 same gender people get married.
Personally I lean more toward the middle although it terrifies me how eagerly we give the government more and more control of our lives with no thought about how that power can and will eventually be abused. So yeah, I'm a small government guy, which makes me a conservative and thusly an unintelligent, racist, homophobic, raving lunatic apparently.
gaia242Feb 14, 2012
I dont want the government running my life either. Especially in personal matters. One giant realm where it seems conservatives have every intention of regulating and prosecuting. There is a visceral strong dislike and fear (to be somewhat polite) that HOMOSEXUALS will "convert" their children or some nonsense like that.... as if that were even possible. I mean seriously, as a man, I can tell you ya cant fake an erection. Can you (if you are a male)?
Most of my family is quite conservative as well. On my mothers side they are almost all evangelical born-agains. Which is in fact how I was raised. Fortunately I have been able to free myself from that indoctrination. Otherwise I'd be on of those self-hating,closeted, having gay sex on the dl without my wife knowing men. My fathers family are a bunch of country club republicans, but the younger gens lap up fox "news" like is ambrosia.
So having witnessed (first hand and with many friends, in addition to other sources) the damage done by "good conservatives" and their narrow turgid view of life, I am quite opposed to their agenda and will not just sit by while evil men (and women) attempt to enslave us with with retrograde world view.
Phewy, i need a drink now:-)
So thinkforyourself, if you'd like to have an actual intellectual discussion, im game. If however you are here to give "intellectual" cover to other less well spoken closed minded bigots, then go bug someone else.
ThinkForYourselfFeb 14, 2012
I don't condone conservative sites that bash liberals either so I don't intend to cover for them. As my screen name implies I don't like fanboys and party cheerleaders from either side.
The reason I initially came to Digg is to study liberals. My goal, to be the only living conservative who understands liberal thinking lol. All joking aside though, for a long time I have exposed myself to BOTH sides of aisle. Exposing myself to Digg didn't teach me much about how to understand liberal thinking, it just showed me that liberals hate conservatives.
I lived with a black buy and a guy from Chile when my dad kicked me out of the house at age 17. I was a brainwashed conservative, my black friend was a brainwashed liberal and the guy from Chile just loved soccer and American girls. The point of my little story is that we still became great friends. How? because we were far more important to each other than politics. Also because of beer. Anyways I'd like to see a little of that in this forum and the entire U.S., a little solidarity i guess.
As for your situation I can't fault you for hating conservatism and evangelicalism, but those aren't people. "Love the sinner hate the sin" as my parents used to say. You can hate conservatism and still be kind to conservative people. (well most of them)
That said, sometimes I lose it and insult a particularly ignorant liberal, everyone has their "buttons". But I do try to be civil and treat others as I want to be treated, as I wish more people would.
ThinkForYourselfFeb 14, 2012
I also want to say 2 more things. First, it was refreshing to have a conversation with you. So many of the liberals i've talked to in here end up not being interested in exchanging ideas rather than insults.
Second, I really do feel bad for you and I know there are some conservatives that have probably said some very hurtful things to you. Unfortunately sometimes the most vocal people on both ends of the spectrum are the biggest idiots or assh**es so I apologize on behalf of the majority of conservatives that truly want you to be happy.
Maybe sometime you can teach me how to understand liberal thinking on such things as the economy and foreign policy. I truly want to understand how 2 intelligent people can draw 2 seemingly opposed conclusions about an issue, simply because one is a liberal and the other a conservative.
superkendallFeb 14, 2012
@Think: Understanding liberals on fiscal matters is simple. They believe whatever the theory of the moment handed down from above is. It's really that simple, just go back and read liberal thinking on the economy ten years ago and then from today. All of the liberals on Digg are parroting talking points on command from a pretty vast centralized system that uses a combination of social media and blogs to create a front of group think rather unlike anything I've ever seen.
It may look imposing but I think it puts people off on the end when EVERY liberal is a sort of pod person echoing the same point over and over. The average everyday people not wired into the broadcast system consider that creepy.
Conservatives have a clear advantage in that they also have a lot of blogs and social media involvement but also healthy debate within the system. Look at how the primaries are going, sure from the outside it looks like conservatives are tearing each other apart but if you consider things they are in a far better position for having conservatives really question each other about what the best path forward is. Again if you ask most liberals (especially here on Digg) you will get the same response to a man because they are all being fed the same point through multiple channels.
Perhaps you will get a real and thoughtful response to your query but I very much doubt it. I really appreciate your point though that EVERY person should learn to think for themselves and learn how to really research an issue to make an informed choice.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 14, 2012
"Let's be clear on one thing though, education is not intelligence. I have known some uneducated people who are very intelligent and also some highly educated people who could not reason logically if their lives depended on it"
--Can you argue that you set the greatest example when you begin your post suggesting that, because *you've* never seen a comparable article title in the conservative media, this is some kind of scientific evidence that it doesn't occur?
Did you even read the article? Because it seems like your rant is based entirely on the title.
ThinkForYourselfFeb 14, 2012
yes i read it, no i'm sure there are better examples, no it's not scientific because it's an observation. Also it's not a "rant"
P.S. If you are going to follow me around Digg and try to nit-pick each post then i'm done with you. If, on the other hand, you want to engage in objective un-biased conversation or even debate then I am open to that.
gaia242Feb 15, 2012
I didn't want to let our conversation end without some followup. I to have enjoyed the dialogue and would like it (in the future) to continue. As you have seem the usual here is for hardened partisans to lob projectiles at each other from behind our own trenches. I to have engaged in this, and honestly it probably will continue, where warranted. I do have the heart of a warrior:-)
I have vacillated back and forth between whether it should be on digg or on a private email. It is much easier (and rewarding, for me) to have a one on one discussion and it allows for the discovery of common ground. IN WHICH OUR COUNTRY IS IN DIRE NEED. And perhaps if it occurs on digg it may help make this a better place (but i wont hold my breath).
And for the record, the liberals in the Seattle blogosphere dont agree with me all the time either. In fact im quite sure many of them think im some sort of republican plant. HA! My point is that (as your name suggests) I do think for myself.
Peace be with you.
celticowboyFeb 15, 2012
Today's right-wing extremists are not conservatives - they are regressives who have bought into the lies of the neo-fascist corporatists.
muffcakesFeb 14, 2012
16 people from an alternate universe dugg you down.
gaia242Feb 14, 2012
OOoooo. Ima scared now!
rogerevans1Feb 13, 2012
I think it takes a certain level of closed-mindedness, and not necessarily lack of intelligence, to be an extremist in any political compass. The far right, the far left, those who are so into libertarianism as to practically be anarchist, the facists, communists, capitalists, socialists and statists.
Maybe it's just me, but I tend to keep a centrist point of view. Sometimes I lean a little to the left, sometimes a little to the right, but most of the time a little into libertarianism at the same time. There are points made from all three of those political agendas that just make sense to me.
Going all the way to one side is akin to cheering on your hometown basketball team even though they haven't won a game in 5 seasons (fanboyism, blind faith, etc.)
skyscapeFeb 13, 2012
And those in the middle are those who can't make up their mind.
rogerevans1Feb 13, 2012
That's true in some cases, but not all. I have made up my mind on many issues, but it just so happens that there isn't one political party which aligns completely with my opinions. I agree with democrats on many issues, and republicans and libertarians on some others. Ergo, sometimes I vote democrat, sometimes republican, and sometimes I think Ron Paul is awesome (but I don't agree with him on a lot of things at the same time).
If you mean that I can't make up my mind on which party to dedicate myself to, you'd be right. I don't think about the parties as "red vs. blue", I try to keep an open mind and follow whoever I feel has the best interests of the people in mind, without even taking their party into consideration, because it seems to me like there are very little differences between the parties anymore.
The line between democrat and republican, as a label, seems very blurry in modern politics, although the differences between the far left and far right are still as great as they've always been. However, you never really see any extremist candidates (although some are further to one side than others) because they all try to be somewhat centrist so that they can swing voters from party to party.
letherialFeb 13, 2012
"However, you never really see any extremist candidates (although some are further to one side than others) because they all try to be somewhat centrist so that they can swing voters from party to party"
have you not been watching the republicans primary? if not, watch a few of them and see your point crumble. its a race to the hard right, even the 'moderate' Romney needs to make a case he is far to the right.
rogerevans1Feb 13, 2012
I stand corrected on the point of never seeing extremists, but I never liked Romney anyway :P
stevanoskiFeb 13, 2012
No one doubted that.
superkendallFeb 14, 2012
Actually the people in the center are the ONLY ones who can make up their mind.
The people on the fringes just think the same as everyone else, because that is easier and and first you seem smarter than you are.
When the centrifuge spins faster and faster it takes a lot of effort to find firm ground in the middle.
roguegeniusFeb 14, 2012
Holy crap. I'm digging that up superkendall. At least the last sentence. That is exactly what happens.
TheNoizeFeb 13, 2012
This is not about "political bias", it's about how conservatives are divorced from reality. Sure, an individual can be a "leftwing extremist", but he will be far from claiming the bat-s**t insane things a right wing extremist will - and the reason is that the right wing is usually for religious lies instead of education, and for perpetuating a closed mentality instead of listening to reality. This is why a politician like Obama, who is fairly educated, will easily pull the rug under Republicans, because they are prone to divorcing themselves from reality in order to convince themselves (and others) that their ideals are absolutely correct.
stevanoskiFeb 13, 2012
DerNoize, you make good substantive comments. However, IMHO, you have your mind altered by what you consider normal. Most independents would look at many ideas and people you adore as total loons that define bat-shyte crazy.
TheNoizeFeb 13, 2012
Most "independents" in America are far from being middle-of-the-road. As you know, America is extremely far-right compared to the rest of the world, and independents are people who are torn between dems and republicans. Looking at how fairly educated most dems sound, and then looking at the Republican debate lineups and their completely idiotic talks about their absolutely insane beliefs - who in their right mind would be torn between these 2 options? You need to have grown up in the bible belt to truly think Republican in America. I'm not trying to appeal to "independents", I have my common sense.
stevanoskiFeb 13, 2012
independents = middle of the road (for America). Bye the bye, I live in the south, you know who is most likely to pull the lever for straight party Democrat Party? Those very people you despise. Yep, it's the old red necks.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TheNoizeFeb 13, 2012
That didn't make sense, you might have to rephrase it. Voter statistics don't back up your claim.
stevanoskiFeb 13, 2012
My bad in that I do believe the word independent means middle of the road. Did not understand you are referring and comparing to the world at large.
TheNoizeFeb 14, 2012
Oh yes, you're right about the fact that it is SOLD as "middle of the road" in this country, because the older generation in politics wants to benefit from that thought structure that "middle means neutral" and "both american right and left have equal weight". Fox News is all over that kind of propaganda! Rupert Murdoch loves it.
The reality is, even when a dem wins the presidency, liberal america is way under-represented. You have to think of the college generation that mostly doesn't vote (despite a certain surge recently, it's still not too active politically), and is mostly liberal, just like the whole new generation that grew up with technology, science, evolution, secularism. A generation that is more educated not because it gets more degrees, but because it actively seeks information freely available (naturally becoming less religious).
The world is changing much faster than you'd think if you just came from a Republican debate, for example! I can't watch one for more than 10 minutes because I just feel trapped in 1930, it's claustrophobic. Why? Because I'm 28. I was born after 82. I know drugs aren't always bad, and technology completely changes society, irreversibly. I know computers, and I'm as technical as artistic. This is the new generation that in 20 years or so will be dominating politics. The right wing is enjoying their last years of embarrassing desperation before they go up in smoke (or retire). It's evolution, baby.
roguegeniusFeb 14, 2012
"most likely to pull the lever for straight party Democrat Party? Those very people you despise. Yep, it's the old red necks."
That I believe. I also believe they are the ones most likely to pull the lever straight republican. The point is, they are the ones most likely to pull the lever straight <blank>. Insert anything here. They are an unthinking lot.
roguegeniusFeb 14, 2012
"That didn't make sense, you might have to rephrase it. Voter statistics don't back up your claim."
He didn't say they were mostly democrat. Just most likely to vote the party line. 9 out of 10 of the are republican, but if you are of a mind set to just unthinking pull levers -- most of those people are stupid rednecks. That's what he means, I think.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
superkendallFeb 14, 2012
Why do you assume Democrats sound more educated to those in the middle?
To many of us (I am and have always been a staunch libertarian) the echoing of talking points without thought is a real intellectual turn-off, yet Democrats more and more engage in that to the exclusion of real debate on a topic.
Sure there are SOME unintelligent conservatives, but there are many with very carefully crafted arguments that you are dismissing with your blanket statement.
TheNoizeFeb 14, 2012
"Sure there are SOME unintelligent conservatives, but there are many with very carefully crafted arguments that you are dismissing with your blanket statement."
I'd like to know who. My direct observation confirms that democrats tend to sound much more logical, and statistical data supports that they are indeed more educated. I'm not saying it's the best party ever in the history of mankind, but it's by far a much better choice than the current Republican offer. At least they can speak with educated awareness of policy making.
auditortuxFeb 13, 2012
Noize, I can give you a handful of "bat-s**t insane things" that those on the far left hold. The first is that we can routinely spend more than we have and somehow it will all work out in the end. Whether that's just plain government spending, Social Security, etc, they refused to see fiscal reality when in front of them.
Add to that an almost religious-like devotion to the advancement of global warming (which I almost laughed when the "carbon offset" appeared - literally a modern day indulgence).
Lets look at it this way - if you look across the aisle and you see evil and stupidity, you're in the loony fringes. Keep it simple.
alec5stewartFeb 13, 2012
You may not realize it, but you have confirmed TheNoize's comments.
auditortuxFeb 13, 2012
Ah yes, for believing that things that cannot go on forever, won't.
TheNoizeFeb 13, 2012
Actually, I thought it was obvious that conservatives tend to have the least sustainable ideas - i.e., "things that can't go on forever".
We can spend more than what we have - that has been America's "greatest invention" to the world! We just can't spend more than we MAKE, because the cash flow will be affected. And "spending" isn't as simple as you think. There's spending going on for defense departments and other endeavors, that you would maybe support, but their importance is arguable at best.
Sorry, everytime a conservative talks about "spending more than we have", it sounds stupid for a number of reasons - sounds like a straight talking point from fox news, sounds ignorant because "spending" is generalist. There's good and bad spending. And it sounds ignorant also because That's far from being problem number 1. I'd say a 2 party system, lobbyists in washington and overall corruption (that leans more towards the right than the left) are definitely the biggest problems. Spending? Yeah there's a lot of military spending that's probably unnecessary when America should be investing in healthcare and education. But it's a big country, so of course there will always be spending.
"Add to that an almost religious-like devotion to the advancement of global warming (which I almost laughed when the "carbon offset" appeared - literally a modern day indulgence)."
Well, I'm sorry to burst you bubble, but global warming is a scientific reality that is ignored by politicians , especially on the right. It's a real problem that involves the end of humanity, but if you want to be in denial, even though your complete ignorance and negligence will also kill me and my family eventually, go ahead - I try to not argue about it because I know how closed-minded you people are.
"Lets look at it this way - if you look across the aisle and you see evil and stupidity, you're in the loony fringes. Keep it simple."
Yeah s**t's simple when you follow logic and commons sense. The problem is everyone who thinks they follow common sense, when they are actually following what their ultra-conservative, sickeningly religious family told them as they grew up. That's not common sense, it's indoctrination.
auditortuxFeb 14, 2012
Lets start with spending... you're right, not all spending is bad. But if you want to see what happens when you borrow too much and have no way to repay it, take a look at Greece.
Granted, they have a key factor that the US does not have - the ability to inflate the debt away, but that only delays the inevitable. Once lenders understand that inflation is a real thing again, they'll start demanding higher and higher interest rates to offset that expected inflation. The ultimate reality is that the laws of finance will always win. We could cut all spending except "good" spending (which we will probably disagree on) but if that good spending still pushes us deeper and deeper in debt, there is no other outcome. Debts must be repaid. And you can only fool some of the people some of the time, but not everyone all of the time.
As for global warming... I think climate change is a better phrase and while I think it is occuring and we need to adapt to stop it, there are those on the left that go far beyond that point to the looney-toon religious factor. They would undo all the improvements of the 20th century and deny the luxuries they have to entire peoples to "save the planet". Yet they still fly in their private jets and live in mansions large enough to contain villages. As one of my friends used to say, "I'll believe them when they start acting like its true."
Here's the thing about common sense - its not complicated. If you cannot explain your reasoning quickly, its not common sense. I can do that with debt and its dangers - I can also do it with taxation and its dangers (both high and low). But I'll mention what I said above - common sense is also knowing when you're being manipulated. And when people say one thing and do another, its a huge red flag.
Do I conserve? Do I tithe? Do I save? Yes. Because I think we have a higher calling than to do just do whats in our best interest. But, standing here in the center, it drives me nuts how both sides point to the other claiming all these things, yet do not see the same deeds in their own.
TheNoizeFeb 14, 2012
"take a look at Greece."
Yeah, well, Greece has nothing to do with America. America gets away with s**t because it's a superpower, but lets not go there. Greece had once an empire that would take America thousands of years to top, so I don't think America was ever in position to talk like it's much better. At only 200 years, there's plenty of time ahead for people here to f**k up their own empire.
"The ultimate reality is that the laws of finance will always win."
Will they? 10 years ago the "laws of finance" dictated that a company like Google could never be profitable. Whoever writes the "laws of finance" knows so much about the technological world 10 years into the future as my grandma knows about 21nm integrated circuits. Something as "solid" as the economy is laying on social layers that will be completely shaken by technology.
"while I think it is occuring and we need to adapt to stop it, there are those on the left that go far beyond that point to the looney-toon religious factor. They would undo all the improvements of the 20th century and deny the luxuries they have to entire peoples to "save the planet"."
I would be careful to never compare liberals to any sort of religious behavior, since liberals are much more secular than the average liberal criticizer - who tend to engage in the most absurd religious fanatic behavior. Glass house? Don't throw stones.
Besides, I think you underestimate the value of their exaggeration. I hope their uncontrolled freakouts are enough to counter the opposite side that simply doesn't give a f**k, and will drive a Hummer even if half the world entered a new ice age. Liberals aren't freaking out about the environment, because that takes some years - they are freaking out about the idiots who think they can s**t all over the world and not be responsible for the mess.
"As one of my friends used to say, "I'll believe them when they start acting like its true.""
Yeah right! No he won't. When he believes them, it will be because it's too late, and his thick brain finally understood the extent of the problem. Newsflash: they've been acting like it's true. Yeah you have rich liberals (I know a lot of them), but usually rich liberals drive a prius, even though they could drive something a lot more gas-guzzling, like a real american millionaire. That in itself shows a slightly different awareness.
"Here's the thing about common sense - its not complicated. If you cannot explain your reasoning quickly, its not common sense."
Well, the problem is, my ability to explain it depends on your ability to understand it. If you can't understand it quickly, doesn't mean it's not common sense. Maybe you're just stupider then you think!
"common sense is also knowing when you're being manipulated."
Yeah? Tell that to the jesus freak nation that the republican candidates are desperately trying to cater to (sounding like clueless idiots in the process).
There's a lot more "pointing" and a lot less responsibility coming from the modern christian right, than the "filthy hippies" they try so hard to villify. Funny what the red scare still does to a country, even in 2012. It completely screwed the baby boomer generation with beliefs that are limited, dogmatic and fear-based. It's very, very sad. But it will be over soon, when that generation dies off.
auditortuxFeb 14, 2012
Lets just stick with the laws of finance (which are far, far different than explaining why Google will are will not make a profit).
Any time you loan someone money, there are several factors you price into the interest rate (or fees, but those are essentially points). Default risk is the primary factor today - we all see that with the bond ratings (AAA, AA+, etc). But there are also factors included such as the fed rate (which is 0, so right now its not much of an issue) but also the inflation risk adjustment.
This is why in the 80's you had mortgage rates in high teens and the US was borrowing at 10+%. Do you know what would happen if rates went up to 5% from the relatively low percentages we pay now?
And say we decide to inflate... well, lenders will start demanding 7, 8 or 10%. And things start to get worse and worse... just as is happening with Greece. That's the laws of finance working out - you start to get risky (default risk goes up) so the lenders raise their rates... which means its harder to pay, so the default risk goes up... that's the classic death spiral.
Laws of finance always win.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 14, 2012
Right on point. No, its not possible for everyone's views to resolve in to 'two neat' sides'. Yet many people fit their views to match their party's position. I personally prefer to think as objectively as possible (a point of pride) and disregard the R or D. I don't understand people such as Skype (just below) who takes pride in having a 'settled mind'. Challenging our views and evolving is a good thing. A closed mind is a waste.
On a side note, I don't believe it is left, right, or middle. We are all capable of having opinions all across the spectrum. What I do believe happens is that many have a great need for Belonging. Therefore, they choose a party to belong as much as anything. Then, they can feel better by pointing to how much better they are than 'evil liberals' or 'evil conservatives'.
muffcakesFeb 15, 2012
But centrist is relative. Centrist in one country might be different than another. This implies that the extremist voice is sometimes the reasonable one. (And by extremist I don't mean torch waving mouth frother but just someone with a very different opinion)
rogerevans1Feb 15, 2012
"And by extremist I don't mean torch waving mouth frother"
I didn't mean it that way, either. An extremist, to me, is someone who is at or near one extreme end of any spectrum, be it political, religious, or anything else.
For instance, if you look at the diagram of the political compass, you'll see to the north is Authoritarian, to the south Libertarian, west is the left and east is the right. Here's a diagram to put it into perspective:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/internationalchart.gif
Note that the chart only shows the extreme ends, but there are of course many other ideals in between there.
nygenxerFeb 12, 2012
"It is by no means the first such paper. There is plenty of research showing that low general intelligence in childhood predicts greater prejudice towards people of different ethnicity or sexuality in adulthood. Open-mindedness, flexibility, trust in other people: all these require certain cognitive abilities. Understanding and accepting others – particularly 'different' others – requires an enhanced capacity for abstract thinking.
"...prejudice tends not to arise directly from low intelligence but from the conservative ideologies to which people of low intelligence are drawn. Conservative ideology is the 'critical pathway' from low intelligence to racism."
Yeah, low IQ and conservative beliefs are linked to prejudiced attitudes, but studies also show that liberals are more intelligent, more educated and more monogamous while conservatives are more inclined to “group think”, more easily frightened, more squeamish, have less empathy and are slower to show empathy than the poor.
http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/october/are-liberals-smarter-than-conservatives
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8228192/Political-views-hard-wired-into-your-brain.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2054300/Conservatives-ARE-squeamish-liberals-Study-finds-right-wingers-easily-disgusted.html
http://journals.chapman.edu/ojs/index.php/e-Research/article/view/91/311
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111220102636.htm
wbtittleFeb 13, 2012
Liberals, with their high intelligence are suckers for statistics and can get sucked into the idiotic arguments. Basically all of the above studies have abused statistics in some way to get the result they wanted.
Are you worried about BPA? there is a good chance you are a liberal!
Are you worried about cholesterol? Another good chance you are a liberal!
Are you worried about eating animals? A really good chance you are liberal!
It is not that conservatives don't worry about such nonsense. There are many that do. There are just more liberals worried about it than conservatives. Now, if you don't like plastic bottles because they make your water taste a little different, you just have a sensitive palette, that's fine. If you avoid bottled water because of the potential of BPA, you are little better than the conservative right wing nut who thinks religion is really important. If you are taking a statin because you and your doctor think it is the right thing and you can deal with the side effects, you are making an informed decision. If you are taking statins because that way you don't have to worry about cholesterol, well, you are just irrational. If you don't like the taste of meat, hey, don't eat it. I completely support your choice. If you turn to me and tell me that it is uneconomical, you don't understand the metrics underlying the system. You are parroting others with no understanding.
Studies are mostly crap. The best a study can do is tell you a relationship is not there(liberals are not always stupid). Any study that says a relationship exists (conservative are idiots) can be counted on to be completely wrong.
The rich irony of what I just said is that the important work done in studies is usually never seen. It is only the unimportant work that gets published. The most important information completed by studies is the information showing the relationship doesn't exist. These don't get published unless there was a previous study showing it did exist.
valourFeb 13, 2012
I think your mistake is seeing "liberals" as the opposite of "conservatives." As though one side is very smart, and the other very stupid. I think many conservative politicians are smart, and just play the electorate with rhetoric and emotional drivel to get elected. There are also a lot of conservatives who use liberal-like fact-bending to achieve their goals -- the WSJ is full of such people.
I see what you are saying -- people who think they are smart by quoting facts and figures can actually be a different brand of stupid -- but I think in general we can agree that this is still a better position to be in. It's better because it is concerned with facts; this means you can change their minds by presenting more reliable or more recent facts. A dyed-in-the-wool conservative, however, is ruled entirely by guess and fantasy and faith, and can never be shaken no matter how much evidence is shown to him. Can you see why this is a far more dangerous and destructive form of extremism?
Extreme liberals may be wrong, but at least you can make them right through education. Extreme conservatives are not much different from Islamists. They "just know" in their "heart" that they are correct.
wbtittleFeb 13, 2012
Changing the minds of liberals is not as easy as you would think. How many of them understand that recycling paper is a bad thing? I can paint them endless energy balances, but they "Know" that recycling is better. "It's just common sense you know!"
The picture you paint of conservatives is the exact same for liberals. That is to say the liberals that fit that bent.
I had a conversation with a conservative that fits your portrait one day. I spent 45 minutes carefully explaining why she shouldn't worry about the utterances of scientists telling us to worry about Caffeine, BPA, Soda, and 18000 other substances of note. She looked at me and said "Brad, when god calls me to heaven, it is because it is time for me to go, there is nothing I can do to change that!"
I realize that she had in one sentence summed up my carefully crafted scientific message. I realized that for all the not so perfect things that have come out of the mouths of the religiously fanatic, there is sometimes an amazingly accurate rationality.
The religion of the left is every bit as irrational as those on the right. They may have different names for their religions -- Environmentalism, veganism, Love on another ism. Whatever it is, it is inhabiting the same region of the brain that those fundamentalists being disparaged by these studies.
Try to reason with someone who thinks BPA is dangerous. There is not one death that can be tied to BPA. The most that has been tied to BPA is men getting bigger breasts. Just yesterday I saw someone worried about the plastic in a VitaMix container because it had BPA and it might leach into the food. For some reason they completely forget that BPA is used to line cans. One of the benefits of lining cans with BPA plastic i that metal didn't leach into the foods giving canned foods that wonderful metallic overtone. Why is it that the ELITE media haven't informed us properly on this subject? Why is it that BPA is hated so? It is not because the liberal mind is so wonderfully more adept.
Sorry. There is irrational behavior everywhere. Attempting to glimmer a 0.5% difference between two equivalent groups is done by people who need to take a good long look in the mirror and wonder if they aren't who they are talking about.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elcalrissianFeb 13, 2012
So, lemme sum this up, studies prove that Idiots are more Racist?
Right?
How about this:
You need to staff a library.
Politician One says: Go hire 6 good future government workers.
Politician Two says: Go hire 6 workers. Make sure at least half are women, and at least half are Mexican/Latino, Black/Africian or Native American.
Which one is the Racist?
If you said #1, the Liberal Media and Publc agree with you. Your inability to DEFINE a MANDATED quota based not on skill, but ethnicity, makes you a racist. Seen you didnt consider Races of people, therefore youre Racits.
If you said #2, congrats, You and I see eye to eye.
Labels Beget Prejudice.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
snarqFeb 14, 2012
You forgot the basic premise of the society you want to open the library in. Here, let me help:
You are in a white, racist, homophobic, paternalistic country IE the USA, and you need to open library.
There you go - Now do you see why you are wrong?
skyislandFeb 12, 2012
Childhood intelligence needs a nurturing environment. From nutrition including vitamins prior to and after birth, from things like a loving environment free of abuse, the sounds of language and of music spoken and provided by mother and father and others including the reading of story to child from good books. The thresh hold moments of learning provided with the tools of learning and of habit of responsibility and learning pride in fun stuff and that the more thought on some things the more interesting they are.. It's like an antidote to lack of desire to keep the mind clear to learn even more stuff.. - and then there is that which destroy worlds and bring learning in a safe place to a halt like extreme poverty or fighting and abuse.. Don't underestimate the ability to raise kids well and for capacity to learn to take off.. But right now the Earth needs protecting so kids all over the place have a tomorrow. A chance for a peaceful world and to hear things like birds sing.. A chance to be able to help others and raise a family of their own.. Like a promise to keep for all..
letsgetreal50Feb 12, 2012Submitter
Dugg UP!
anomaly100Feb 12, 2012
Wow, the crazies on the right swarm your threads too. I don't feel so alone anymore:-)
pc25Feb 12, 2012
Liberal BS stinks no matter who posted it.
rastas11Feb 12, 2012
I concur
kjeffvFeb 12, 2012
Me threepio.
publiclurkerFeb 13, 2012
well, it an intellectually challenged simpleton like you doesn't like it, it has to be true. It's not like you've ever been right before.
bigbert81Feb 13, 2012
Once again, denying the facts....
Weird...
savetheseaFeb 13, 2012
Dispute the article, if it is liberal BS, it should be easy to find all sorts of problems with it.
letsgetreal50Feb 13, 2012Submitter
Ignore them. Best thing you can do.
equinox2o12Feb 13, 2012
Someone buy these guys a bag of paint chip before they cry.
jimijamFeb 12, 2012
Well if one was looking for another partisan reason concerning the evisceration of education, there ya go.
DiggPiggletFeb 13, 2012
The article is just partisan hate speech. Only a childish idiot would enjoy it.
It should hit #1 on Digg.
dauntless1Feb 13, 2012
http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page
As long as this s**t is still around, no conservative has any business pretending they deserve respect.
elcalrissianFeb 13, 2012
Im educated, employed, indebted (beacuse i took school loans and my parents werent rich), i volunteer, and I love gay people. Im also a conservative.
Dauntless - Ive never even see that website. What's that say about your ideas of what your opponent is?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drmangrumFeb 13, 2012
It wouldn't surprise me if such sites were backed by Soros. It's amazing how lefties can find these sites, yet many conservatives have never heard of them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ageofmasteryFeb 13, 2012
Sorry to disappoint you but Conservapedia is the work of Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, to counter what he called the liberal bias of Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia
dauntless1Feb 13, 2012
@elcalrissian
It says they don't mind when people lie in their name as long as their guy wins.
dougchristianFeb 13, 2012
At best it suggests you aren't paying very close attention to what you're supporting. But I also don't think anyone would be surprised if it turned out nothing you just said was true.
elcalrissianFeb 13, 2012
Oh no no no. See, thats another failure of the Liberal Mind.
See, I dont seek out Conservatives-R-Us. I already know the sky is blue, why should I seek out more evidence?
I look for what the 'other side' sees. I listen to David Sirota and Mario Solis Marich on Radio, not Rush and Glenn Beck.
When I want to fling Liberal Poo, I go to Media Matters, Alternet, Politicususa......I use their sources to show stupidity. I've never once dove into the "ultra-crazy-fringe-blog" to use as evidence of Liberal Idiocy.
.....YET
....You guys dig up some fickle conservapedia....
Every day I take myself out of myself, and try to see what everyone else sees.
What I've learned, and what you've shown, is that 'Taking myself outside myself' is a very RARE practice.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dougchristianFeb 13, 2012
If you think Conservapedia is some tiny fringe thing noone's heard of and that most people in your party are thinkers and moderates then you really haven't been paying attention.
Your movement is your movement. It doesn't matter how sophisticated your thinking is (and nothing you've said suggests it is), if you're using your voice to support an unsophisticated mob than you are no better than that mob. If you don't even know what the mob you're supporting is doing then you're just a dick.
Trying to tell people the mob isn't there is not a valid retort.
I certainly don't believe you've ever tried to see what a liberal sees, but that's not even enough. You wouldn't be capable of doing that properly unless you understood them first and you've clearly got the same inability and disinterest when it comes to that as every other "thinker" in your mob.
It's all really sad actually. You're a great example. You actually think you're trying, but you've got all this crap embedded in everything you say. You've got your "Liberal Mind" proper nouns and your "obviously all my opinions are solid facts akin to the color of the sky" bulls**t. And everything you say is in terms of group conflict and where to get material to "fling". And you actually think you're trying to understand all sides. And on top of that you're smug about it. The point is, you're sad and pathetic.
ThinkForYourselfFeb 13, 2012
The fact that the post saying "...no conservative has any business pretending they deserve respect." was dugg up 10 times speaks volumes about the majority that frequent Digg.
Also telling is the fact that elcalrissan's innocuous post was dugg down simply because it refuted a post that bashed conservatives. Pretty easy to see why people always call Digg a liberal circle jerk. The message I get is "we hate conservatives and there's nothing you can say that will make us stop hating them." If you're not going to be open minded at least have some integrity.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ThinkForYourselfFeb 14, 2012
I see someone illustrated my point by digging my post down. Thanks
snarqFeb 14, 2012
We're talking about statistical trends... how does pointing out one exception in millions help your argument?
letherialFeb 13, 2012
you see this on the website
"The Catholic Compromise fools no one and is bad medicine, both for the women involved and for the larger society"
It links to a article that so blatant in what it wants to do, refuse women the right to use birth control....it distorts so many facts; only the ignorant will believe it.
like this one
". A woman who takes it all the time might even choose to marry someone with whom she is less likely to have children. (And when she stops using the pill, she might find that she married the wrong man, but never really know why.)"
lmfao...the ignorance, wow....
GentlemanGhost542Feb 13, 2012
they are particularly loony
for example the so call liberal senator hit list. With images to back it up
http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2009/01/27/conservapedia-stop-obama-with-our-hit-list/
or the time they stole an image of Jesus riding a dinosaur and put it in their creationism page.
If you want more look up their page on Soccer which they describe as "Socialist sport"
more unfunny stuff on that site
http://www.conservapedia.com/Young_mass_murderers
The_SovereignFeb 13, 2012
f**k off if you don't like it here, you f**king gentlemen.
stevanoskiFeb 13, 2012
Ah, there's the bigotry we've come to know coming from you. Is a "gentlemen" something to be derided? You homophobic much?
The_SovereignFeb 13, 2012
Ah, there's the trolling we've come to know coming from you. Is a "gentlemen" something to be loved? You stupid much?
stevanoskiFeb 13, 2012
If it is a human being then yes it is something to be loved and certainly not to be hated and derided as you so often do.
The_SovereignFeb 13, 2012
So you love me, then?
stevanoskiFeb 13, 2012
lol
jsaintFeb 13, 2012
Sadly they are trained to ignore logic too. So, steadfast so, pliable.
analogkid1Feb 13, 2012
This scientific, statistical study only proves what everyone (including the few conservatives with higher IQs) has known all along.
letsgetreal50Feb 12, 2012Submitter
"Low general intelligence," AKA ignorance that leads to prejudice, bigotry and leads to conservatism.
Makes sense to me.
rastas11Feb 12, 2012
Have you ever thought about getting help or are you just off your meds?
pc25Feb 12, 2012
they are the one's they have wait for......it's true, Obama told them.
pc25Feb 12, 2012
waited
equinox2o12Feb 13, 2012
Rastas and PC, have you ever read the s**t you post? You guys are like retarded hemorrhoids with Parkinson's.
pc25Feb 13, 2012
do read the crap he usual liberal Circle of Jerks posts? No, but you digg the submissions up.
publiclurkerFeb 13, 2012
No, it's called science, but you don't believe in that either do you?
equinox2o12Feb 13, 2012
Before they can understand the conclusion, they have to understand the definitions of Conservative and Liberal.
From Dictionary/Thesaurus.com
Conservative-
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: cautious, moderate, tending to preserve the status quo
Synonyms: Tory, bourgeois, constant, controlled, conventional, die-hard, fearful, firm, fogyish, fuddy-duddy, guarded, hard hat, hidebound, holding to, illiberal, in a rut, inflexible, middle-of-the-road, not extreme, obstinate, old guard, old line, orthodox, quiet, reactionary, redneck, right, right of center, right-wing, sober, stable, steady, timid, traditional, traditionalistic, unchangeable, unchanging, uncreative, undaring, unimaginative, unprogressive, white bread
Liberal-
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: progressive
Synonyms: advanced, avant-garde, broad, broad-minded, catholic, enlightened, flexible, free, general, high-minded, humanistic, humanitarian, indulgent, intelligent, interested, latitudinarian, left, lenient, libertarian, loose, magnanimous, permissive, radical, rational, reasonable, receiving, receptive, reformist, tolerant, unbiased, unbigoted, unconventional, understanding, unorthodox, unprejudiced
-------
From Websters.com
Conservative-
1. preservative
2. a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism: as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) : progressive conservative
3. a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional b : marked by moderation or caution <a conservative estimate> c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
Liberal-
1. a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2. a : marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : ample, full
3. obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4. not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>
5. broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
... and boom goes the dynamite.
rotfoxFeb 13, 2012
Of course they don't, I mean the internet is magic!
And magnets... how do they work?! The tides come in and the tide goes out, can you explain that?
:PComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dirtyfriesFeb 13, 2012
Rastas is just mad because he's the king of misinformation.
Over 7000 submissions and not a single story has made front page.
publiclurkerFeb 13, 2012
He'd better watch out, his masta's won't keep him around with that failure rate.
jsaintFeb 13, 2012
Yea they will, His "masters" care about numbers not success.
equinox2o12Feb 13, 2012
The problem with Rastas' misinformation is it has no information to miss.
bossm4nFeb 13, 2012
Pretty ballsy comment coming from a guy who has submitted almost 4500 stories of which only 4% have gone popular. And more than likely, none of those would have hit the front page had they not been made staff picks. Not everyone has direct connections with the people running the site.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dirtyfriesFeb 13, 2012
I know, right? 4500 stories since 2008 as opposed to our boy who did it all since late 2010?
BTW, any proof in what you're saying? No? Thought not.
Get a clue you sycophant. Running two twitters, being paid to digg/sub? Yeah, you have quite the life there. Pathetic.
You aren't the boss of s**t.
woj1sFeb 13, 2012
"You aren't the boss of s**t." LOL
bossm4nFeb 13, 2012
Oh noes, dirtyfries has his panties in a bunch. I must have hit pretty close to the mark. Go cry to someone who gives a f**k.
dirtyfriesFeb 13, 2012
Look everyone, the angry basement dwelling power user is upset.
:)
bluto36Feb 13, 2012
its ok Dirty
i am sure you will get better
bossm4nFeb 13, 2012
Upset? Not me bro. Like I said, I could give two s**ts. I'm just taking up for someone who I don't think has done anything wrong who you attacked. I've got bigger fish to dirtyfry.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dirtyfriesFeb 14, 2012
Good call hoss. Him insulting the original poster about meds certainly wasn't doing anything wrong. Nor is spamming Digg with an endless stream of garbage.
Partisan shill. Keep replying, there's nothing like using you to bump the activity feed to afford you some relevance.
bossm4nFeb 14, 2012
Because you don't like the message, it automatically makes everything he submits spam or garbage? You don't seem to have a problem digging or submitting similar sites that agree with your point of view.
That last sentence doesn't even make sense. You're obviously running out of things to say or just can't come up with anything but insults, much like your first reply. I thought you had a little more in the tank than that. Talk about pathetic.
dirtyfriesFeb 14, 2012
Yawn, sorry to break it to you but you're nothing but a screen name and empty words to me. What you know or think you know is pretty irrelevant to me. Take the tough internet guy routine elsewhere.
Point is, he opted to insult someone unprovoked. You felt he did no wrong and it reveals you for what you are, a partisan hack and nothing more.
As to his content, I don't mind that it goes against what I think. What I do mind is that he's singularly plugging a blog that not only just reposts from elsewhere, but also totally distorts the original articles. It's crap, through and through....and it comes from both sides around here. Which is why I bury it from both sides.
letherialFeb 13, 2012
you sound like you are in high school or just got out.
The whole 'you submitted 4000 story's and none are popular" is exceptionally childish
bossm4nFeb 13, 2012
That was his original point. I agree with you.
superkendallFeb 14, 2012
Next step for the liberals: Phrenology!
You know you want to believe our heads are shaped differently. Come on, admit it.
mikeymondaviFeb 13, 2012
I think this has been pretty much proven on both sides.
TheNoizeFeb 13, 2012
Not exactly... On the left side, sometimes they go too far. On the right side, they often do. It's the group think, reality divorced, fear-based mentality (that drives the right and not so much the left), that creates that IQ gap.
rudegarFeb 13, 2012
the more convinced you are that you have all the answers the more likely it is that you have non
The_SovereignFeb 13, 2012
Until a tipping point is reached, and suddenly you know that you know. That's the goal.
markglFeb 14, 2012
Looks like we're gonna win cause America are bunch of idiots.
roguegeniusFeb 14, 2012
When republicans win, that is generally the reason. dugg up.
markglFeb 15, 2012
I guess us good ol fly over country people are goona win. Shucks. You coastline people don't even know.
culpritFeb 14, 2012
Given the deplorable state of our public school system, if the premise of this article is true, there should be many more conservatives.
roguegeniusFeb 13, 2012
More on low intelligence than poor information. Intelligence can see out information, but you have do be pretty dull witted to just keep swollwing spoonful after spoonful of unconfirmed crap.
Liberals and moderates go to the same schools conservatives go to, they can just actually learn.
concusionFeb 13, 2012
seriously, they pride themselves on their ignorance. They think science is a religion or a belief and argue against it as such, for instance global warming/climate change. Do you think any of us arguing that this is taking place, WANT THIS to be true? No, science evolves all the time and if new information came out leading us to a different conclusion, those of us with scientific minds will accept that. We are not going to believe in something if its not happening. That's the difference, and really you can't argue with that.
letherialFeb 13, 2012
Its not intelligence, its critical thinking skills
People in the right wing often cannot separate their emotions with logic. A leader can stand in front of a audience and say buzz words like socialism, communism, class warfare etc...the followers will let their emotions run first and never listen to logic, (like socialism and communism is two different things) and get all up in arms...then they repeat to their conservative friends (its doubtful the right wingers want to know anyone who thinks different) who also get all up in arms
Facts do not matter, only emotions...the human mind will feel emotions despite the logic behind it, in fact, the human mind will create its reality to fit with the emotions despite the truth behind it. Conservatives where never taught to tell between the human mind tricking to feel and what is the truth.
Since this is a trait of children...its how the leaders often talk to them; short simple quick talks based on feelings instead of breaking down a argument and explaining why your way is better.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 13, 2012
You may be right on that. "Intelligence" may not be specific enough of a term.
letherialFeb 13, 2012
i don't know what kind of word that it would be, smart people fall into this trap as well...Its human nature, and honestly you cant blame the republicans for falling for it simply because its the leaders using basic psychology to manipulate the masses...Its nothing new, the churches have been doing it for more then two thousand years.
The way to stop it is to teach them when they are young, very few adults will challenge their own thinking....even proactively trying to do it is difficult, the human mind is one tricky SOB.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rixar13Feb 13, 2012
"Importantly, it shows that prejudice tends not to arise directly from low intelligence but from the conservative ideologies to which people of low intelligence are drawn."
A little budwieser helps this along...
sapana543Feb 13, 2012
Keep telling yourselves that...
jacobsjuniorFeb 13, 2012
So basically anyone that votes for the Republican party is certifiably stupid?!
roguegeniusFeb 13, 2012
No. They just have a statistically higher chance of being certifiable stupid.
auditortuxFeb 13, 2012
The fact that this story keeps coming out again and again, making the same leaps, makes me start to wonder if this is just the beginning of something bigger. Label your opponents subhuman, dumb, unable to be reasoned with... we've had that start before.
Lets look at it more broadly. There are those who take things at face value on both sides. There are those in the middle who do the same. But "greater prejudice towards people of different ethnicity or sexuality in adulthood" would be said of either party. It comes down to how it expresses itself. I, for one, thing one of the most insidious changes on the last generation is how we seem to make it perfectly fine to accept that certain people would never survive without the government helping them. Is that better than overt racism?
stevanoskiFeb 13, 2012
Dang well said.
roguegeniusFeb 14, 2012
Or, it keep coming out again and again because people don't want to believe it, investigate, conclude that it's correct, and report the findings.
If you want to to go away, stop confirming it.
elcalrissianFeb 13, 2012
Walt Allen. Ahhhh, freshman Baseball tryouts. I was a swimmer, wet haired smelling of cholrine. The other freshman, eager to make the team, immediately looked at my wet hair, associated it with swimming, and then Speedos, and then to my sexuality.
Walt was the worse. Leading the pack of drooling idiots to ostracize the 'Faggy Swimmer'.
It was unending. Taking grounders at third, taking pickoffs, learning the signs, no matter what we were practicing, Walt pointed out my 'other' sport, my chubby cheeks, and my glasses.
Two weeks later, the list was posted. 2nd Team Varsity? The Faggy, Nerdy, Chubby Swimmer. Freshman team? Didnt include Walt.
You'd listen to him, and Walt was amazing, while the faggy swimmer was faggy.
I guess it was about this time in my life when I started to realize that those who throw the stones, those who bark the loudest, and those who label based on futile and wavering traits, THOSE people are the biggest idiots of them all.
bluto36Feb 13, 2012
*golf clap*
well done sir +1 to you
Mark_LincolnFeb 13, 2012
No surprise in this article.
bigbert81Feb 13, 2012
Reading the postings written by the DPs here, it's funny to see how threatened they are obviously feeling towards information like this. It's like they're backed into a corner and only know how to insult and thrash about to get out.
It's also funny to note that you never seem to find studies showing the opposite, wherein LIBERALS are the low IQ, prejudice ones; and all the while liberals can seem to back themselves up with facts and figures more so than conservatives, who just keep saying how stupid liberals are without the ability to back it up with anything.
bluto36Feb 13, 2012
that would be racist to study that and then present it
concusionFeb 13, 2012
can you remind me, what race exactly are conservatives again?
roguegeniusFeb 14, 2012
Can we count stupid as a race? Failing that, white. Or, more specifically: white trash.
bigbert81Feb 13, 2012
Umm...what?
I'm confused as to how race became involved at all in this.
killersquirelFeb 14, 2012
Race becomes involved when hey lack the intelligence to counter an argument. Thanks bluto for being a great example of what this story is about.
Closed AccountFeb 13, 2012
I wish those of you without low intelligence knew the difference between fiscal and social conservatism. Obama, Santurom, Newt, and Romney, all anti-gay marriage, pro-war, anti-pot, pro-patriot act. Ron Paul is the opposite.
roguegeniusFeb 14, 2012
We know the difference. There are multiple reasons to hate them.
Closed AccountFeb 14, 2012
Ok, plz list a few. Also, do you have any comments about Obama agreeing with the GOP on the 4 positions above?
markglFeb 14, 2012
The fact that Ron Paul still says it's America's own fault we got what we deserved for 9/11 and other terror attacks. He's gotta be everyone's worse nightmare for foreign policy. He won't help Israel too. Our own allies he'd rather brush them off.
Closed AccountFeb 14, 2012
Mark, what is the most important issue to you this election?
Closed AccountFeb 14, 2012
Mark, my comment was buried because someone doesn't want to hear what issue is most important to you.
Closed AccountFeb 14, 2012
Do you think we should bomb Syria or Iran?
Closed AccountFeb 14, 2012
keep on burying pacifism, ill put that on your tombstone if they get you 1st.
roguegeniusFeb 14, 2012
economic fantasy.
social fantasy
historical fiction
scientific fallacy
intentional division damaging America for the sake of party gain
Continued stripping of the workers in favor of the rich and the non-working rural areas
despicable as individuals
pseudo-intellectuality and in general inferior thinking process
...
Seriously, how long of a list do you want?
Closed AccountFeb 14, 2012
lets take #1, which ron paul platform is economic phantasy and explain?
roguegeniusFeb 14, 2012
Let's not. I've spent too much time on this thread already. You asked, I answered.
Closed AccountFeb 14, 2012
you answer was a bit ambiguous, economic fantasy, like cut the military and bring our troops home, or end the drug war, or audit the federal reserve?
Closed AccountFeb 14, 2012
also, did you have any comments about the 4 issues Obama and the GOP (sans RP) agree?
roguegeniusFeb 14, 2012
No. You asked if we knew the difference between the Republican's social fantasy worlds and their economic fantasy worlds. I said I did.
If you want to know about when I get annoyed at Obama that's a whole different issue.
Closed AccountFeb 14, 2012
Ok, so who are you supporting?
laurahoustonFeb 12, 2012
squirrely people
squir·rel·y /ˈskwɜrəli, ˈskwʌr- or, especially Brit., ˈskwɪr-/ Show Spelled[skwur-uh-lee, skwuhr- or, especially Brit., skwir-] Show IPA
adjective Slang .
eccentric; flighty.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rixar13Feb 13, 2012
"Importantly, it shows that prejudice tends not to arise directly from low intelligence but from the conservative ideologies to which people of low intelligence are drawn."
A little budwieser helps this along...
assassyn360Feb 13, 2012
The dumbest assh**es in captivity.
skyscapeFeb 13, 2012
That is the common failed stereotype coming from the liberal propaganda. When you see the kind of stuff that liberal left breeds, such as wall street occupiers, communists, and homosexuals, whose minds and bodies are diseased, you quickly realize that liberalism in general is a mental disorder.
What liberals want to do is have conservatives tolerate their lifestyle of death; tolerate their views on homosexuality, aids, abortion, feminism, and other crap that they bring from the gutter. Intelligence is not tolerance. Intelligence is the rejection the total rejection of liberal views. Sure you can be patient, and nice to these folks, but at the same time rejecting for everything they stand for and believe in. Tolerance, ironically, is something foreign to liberalism when it comes to them tolerating conservatism.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
soporifikxFeb 13, 2012
Thanks for concisely summarizing conservative ignorance and prejudice, with clear examples, all in one single post.
graphictruthFeb 13, 2012
I find that tolerating bigots - people who would cheerfully drop a tire around my neck and torch it in the public square if they thought they could get away with it - is stupid. For it will lead to conditions where they CAN get away with it. Like, say, Iran. Or Afghanistan.
Since I do not want to have a burning tire around my neck for the crime of being me in public, I publically point out the muderously stupid belief-sets that lead to such conditions.
Such as yours.
For it's folks such as you that used to pose for photos in full Klan regalia. And no, that ain't a leap of assumption. I was raised by such folks, grew up among them. They talked just LIKE that, and mourned the days when they could make sure that "gentlemen, gentlemen and short haired wimmen" knew what would happen to them if they stepped out of place.
So yes. I do dispise you. For cause. Because people like you, and your attitudes toward others make the world a worse place. Because you are not just wrong, but are active in support of ideals that lead directly and obviously toward evil outcomes for others, and you think that is good. You cheerfully consider those who disagree with you to be subhuman and unworthy of the protection of the law - and will subvert any law that disagrees.
So I do not tolerate you. And, of course, given the choice to advantage you, or advantage a human being possessing a sense of decency, or indeed, a random rock... I'll go for "not you."
stevanoskiFeb 13, 2012
You need to check your mutuals here on digg for many on the Left (here on digg) violence is always the first choice. But you probably just mean those on the right so my bad.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
graphictruthFeb 13, 2012
I mean "people like you." Folks who use politics or religion as an excuse to be assh**es unto others. Sometimes they pretend to be "leftists," sometimes "rightists" but it's all about them, all the time, so the words don't matter.
Take what you just said about what I said. You asserted that I was advocating violence. What I said was that I do not tolerate nor will I advantage anyone who is intolerant.
I don't do business with them. I don't buy cookies from their kids. I don't sign their petitions. If they need a zoning variance and I am asked to support it, I won't. If there are three homeless families, and theirs is one of them, the other two get the first call on stuff I have to spare. If I know about a job, or have extra snow tires, or know of a good second-hand car... I don't call them. If they need to move - well, not only won't I help, nor will I lend my pickup, I don't even have boxes to spare.
It's called shunning.
All the little things that members of a community do for one another, I don't do for them, because they don't want to be part of a community of decent people. They are hateful, say things that make me uncomfortable and expect me to tolerate their sexist homophobic idiocies - "or else."
They think it's "communism" give a crap about my neighbours. So, clearly, they are not a good investment for me - or anyone else who knows what "community" is. Nor are they really interested in my help - unless it's free. Because that's what freedom means to them... something for nothing.
stevanoskiFeb 13, 2012
Check your mutuals or are you a hypocrite? No place did I assert you were advocating violence.
graphictruthFeb 13, 2012
Ah, I misunderstood. I see what you are saying is that my points are discredited because some people who may superficially seem to agree with me think that violence is a reasonable response to people who advocate the things you seem to like.
You also seem to think that I "belong" to some identifiable ideology. Well, if "not an assh**e" is an ideology, I suppose so. And if not wanting to put up with assh**es is a POLITICAL viewpoint or intent to commit "social engineering", or an imposition upon people of faith... well, I'll raise my hand to that.
assh**es are stinky.
I don't like being expected to pretend they are roses, and frankly, if the GOP, or American Conservatism or those who assert that morality in public life matters and therefore ally themselves with social conservatism (as if the two ideas were similar) it might be wise to rethink this idea of offering us all a bouquet of assh**es come election time. Because candidates stand for something - and these assh**es stand up proudly for being assh**es, in order to gain the assh**e vote.
And the more the Right panders to idiots and assh**es, the stronger other parties become, because MOST people don't LIKE having to put up with hateful assh**es in order to get things done.
Now that it has gotten to the point where it's all assh**es snapping at assh**es with the AVOWED GOAL of doing nothing, or possibly less than that... well... if you think the resulting discontent is *idealogical* it is because they are rejecting the *idiot* part of your ideology.
stevanoskiFeb 13, 2012
Will have to take your word on a**holes being stinky and don't really need a cite.
concusionFeb 13, 2012
graphictruth is writing some great comments here to you stevan, and all you can offer back is a 1 liner.
graphictruthFeb 13, 2012
I darkly note that your comment seems to indicate that you belong to a group of people that seem to feel that saying the word "assh**e" is more offensive and immoral than *behaving* like an assh**e.
stevanoskiFeb 13, 2012
At conclus: He is making some great comments I am directing my replies at specific points in his arguments, sorry it doesn't meet your criteria.
graph: now can you show me where I believe that?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chassupFeb 13, 2012
Obama thrives on economic slaves:
50% of Americans receive some form of government assistance.
20% of Americans rely on the federal government for everything from housing, health care, and food stamps to college tuition and retirement assistance.
Government dependency jumped 8.1 percent in the past year.
The average individual who relies on Washington receives benefits valued at $32,748, more than the nation’s average disposable personal income ($32,446).
Half of the U.S. population (49.5 percent) does not pay any federal income taxes.
In the next 25 years, more than 77 million baby boomers will retire... relying on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
70% of the federal government’s budget goes to individual assistance programs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
letherialFeb 13, 2012
400 people own 50% of this country's wealth.
50% of people dont pay federal taxes, this is because they dont make enough and cannot live with extra burdens. there are other taxes they pay.
Government dependency is on the rise because the banks decided they wanted to f**k everyone and destroyed the world economy. (the president has not changed the requirements for government assistance...short of unemployment, but that's just normal in a economic downturn;
also, the president doesn't have that kind of power, it falls in congress and what you are referring to can only happen in congress)
social security, medicare and medicaid are all payed by the people; social security is solvent but the federal government raided that to pay for wars, medicare and medicaid are out of hand because of greedy healthcare system...not because its a bad program.
"70% of the federal government’s budget goes to individual assistance programs."
you need to minus what is put into it and what is put out of it; medicare, medicaid and social security are all taxes, figure how much comes in minus how much goes out...If you factor that in, the cost goes way down and what is left is the defense budget that spends 50% more then the rest of the world combined.
See how your mislead? maybe you should branch to other news sources.
superkendallFeb 14, 2012
"Government dependency is on the rise because the banks decided they wanted to f**k everyone"
Which was, just to remind you, done at the instruction of the government...
How odd that the government would want to make MORE people dependent on government, which then in turn means the government must grow larger...
Something that cannot continue forever, will not.
The only question is how much pain comes at the end of the ride. If we continue down the current path the end game is worse even than Greece. It is morally repugnant to get the poor addicted to government assistance because it will not last forever and they the people cannot help themselves, and after a long enough time of government assistance the charities have withered and died.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
annonym035Feb 13, 2012
This article looks analogous to the study about Mac users being smarter than Windows users on average. It could be related to status quo of remaining in Windows platforms even though there are superior platforms available.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
goatheardFeb 13, 2012
If the material presented is true then the author is definately a conservative.
Graf_OrlockFeb 12, 2012
Translation: If you don't follow in lockstep with our beliefs, you are ignorant and stupid.
So... really, who's the prejudiced bigot in this situation?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorFeb 13, 2012
No matter how many times you try to claim the biblical value of pi really makes it 3, that simply isn't true.
Graf_OrlockFeb 13, 2012
Another non-sequitor?
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Irony is lost on prejudiced bigots.
The_SovereignFeb 13, 2012
You sound like a prejudiced bigot, though.
stevanoskiFeb 13, 2012
like when you call people you disagree with "gentlemen"?
The_SovereignFeb 13, 2012
No, just gentlemen. I don't label most people I disagree with. Besides, we were talking about him, not me. Stop trolling.
killersquirelFeb 13, 2012
He gave you the ammunition, I can't digg you down for using it.
Graf_OrlockFeb 13, 2012
You don't know anything about me, so that sounds like you're the one prejudiced.
The_SovereignFeb 13, 2012
no u
Graf_OrlockFeb 14, 2012
Ah yes, the "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument.
Are you sure you're not a conservative? You seem a bit like the caricature Alternet paints.
barackalypseFeb 13, 2012
The irony of you replying to an article about poor information claiming anyone would suggest the Biblical of Pi is 3 is hysterical. Join me on a discovery of truth and let us see what the Bible says of Pi:
"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26"
A cubit is 18 inches, a hand is 4 inches, thus:
outer diameter: 10 cubits = 180 inches
outer radius = 5 cubits = 90 inches
inner radius = 5 cubits minus a hand = 90-4=86 inches
circumference = 30 cubits = 540 inches
C = 2(pi)r
Pi = 540/172 = 3.1395 or 3.14 to two decimal places.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/handComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rogerevans1Feb 13, 2012
Why did this comment get Dugg down? It looks legit to me. Is it just because no one likes this guy (I'm new here)? I thought he did a pretty good job explaining it.
ieatskunkFeb 13, 2012
Im afraid that is how mob rule works.
gaia242Feb 13, 2012
Modern day conservatives have abandon independently verifiable facts (liberal bias?!?!) and retreated into a realm of their own making. Its populated with their own "experts" who get paid to do nothing but make their "facts" fit their ideology. So to respond to your question, if mob rule is a place where people see through this rouse then yes, i'm part of this mob.
gaia242Feb 13, 2012
Even a broken clock like barackalypse is right twice a day. As you become more familiar with this sight you will notice that many many accounts (i say accounts and not people, for good reason) will parrot foxnews (the unofficial mouth piece of the republican party) talking points. So yes, I also dugg that steaming pants load Barack-alypse down.
letsgetreal50Feb 13, 2012Submitter
Fables. Now that's getting closer to the conservative mindset. They believe in fables and want to inflict those beliefs on the rest of the country.
equinox2o12Feb 13, 2012
Pi is part of the Sacred Geometry and is far older than the bible. It's found in Sumerian/Babylonian, Aryan/Indus Vedas, China and Egyptian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_of_Life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mathematics
This is old hat.
superkendallFeb 14, 2012
That's EXACTLY what liberal beliefs are about. The Daily Kos claims Pi is 3, and here you are posting in support of it and the MSNBC video showing three leading "scientists" in support of the thing.
roguegeniusFeb 13, 2012
"Translation: If you don't follow in lockstep with our beliefs, you are ignorant and stupid."
Translation of the Translation: if you can't refute the facts, shoot the messengers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Graf_OrlockFeb 13, 2012
There are no facts to refute. I can't refute ignorant rants, just call them out for what they are.
The_SovereignFeb 13, 2012
Well, yeah, if you don't believe the truth you're ignorant and stupid. Do you disagree with that? Then you're ignorant and stupid. "Prejudice" is judging before you have all the facts, but we're not doing that. Being a bigot who is intolerant only of the stupid and ignorant is the enlightened way of life.
stevanoskiFeb 13, 2012
And you calling those you disagree with is? homophobic to say the least. Bigoted at best.
The_SovereignFeb 13, 2012
Bigotry, for lack of a better word, is good.
Afraid of fags? Hardly. They're pretty docile.
Graf_OrlockFeb 13, 2012
No truths are spoken here. Just self-congratulatory opinions. Funny, much like all those radio right wing demagogues you guys despise.
The_SovereignFeb 13, 2012
So you're not speaking the truth either?
You people sure are good at generalizations.
:D
No?
robin77311 days ago
Conservatives have brain damage. Well, I guess that puts us on the first step to forgiveness.
mekongkayakFeb 18, 2012
Republicans are the modern day Communists: They have a Marx & Engels(Ayn Rand&n Milton Friedman) and a mytholigized Lenin & Mao (Reagan, Thatcher) and their own Stalin (Bush? Gingrinch? Take your pick).
Most importantly, they have the Little Red Book of Conservatism where Nothing is Wrong and no dissent may be brokered and straw enemies must be labelled and hunted. Hell..even though supplyside and unfettered deregulation failed..they are like Lysenko's false model of evlution which resulted in so much famine and was adhred to for decades afterwards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
witney_in_memoryFeb 15, 2012
It's seen.
skyislandFeb 15, 2012
Right now if mankind can not get its wits about him and mount a concerted effort at stopping global warming all hope will be lost relatively shortly thereafter. It's not about who is smarter right now or really anything else than how can the knowledge and abilities we have be put to best use and somehow build the society and industrial capacity along with and including new discovery and tracking of effectiveness of things tried so that history can be altered in the most spectacular way.. If we focus on that, I believe great things could be.
clowder3Feb 14, 2012
gud
clowder3Feb 14, 2012
gud
reverantFeb 14, 2012
There are some lower intelligence conservatives out there, just like outlying people in any group. On the other hand, liberals that consider themselves academics, or even just think they have above average intelligence are so arrogant and full of devouring each other's BS that they are practically blind.
roguegeniusFeb 14, 2012
I see. So stupid conservatives are just 'a subset' but ALL liberals are academics. Most people like the at least wedge one rational sentence between contradicting ones, but not reverant. Kudos.
Dr_RightFeb 12, 2012
Alternet Thrives on Low Intelligence and Poor Information...
...There, fixed it.
crom99Feb 13, 2012
It's actually a syndicated Guardian article and cites the Psychological Science journal from Canada (an actual medical journal). It also points out that the Daily Mail, a conservative British tabloid, broke the news in Britain. You would know that had you read the article.
dirtyfriesFeb 13, 2012
the facts, they buuuurn! THEY BURN
atomheartmotherFeb 13, 2012
The facts are in question, to say the least. From William M. Briggs, Adjunct Professor of Statistical Science at Cornell University.
"One would have guessed from the title, that the authors looked at how the scores on the intelligence questions correlated with the scores on the attitude and racism questions, taking into account the uncertainty in the reliability. You would be wrong.
They first modeled the intelligence questions to create one “latent” (unobserved) measure, called “g”. The uncertainty in creating “g” is then ignored in all subsequent analysis. They did the same for the attitude questions, creating a “latent” (actually unobserved) variable called “conservative ideology.” Uncertainty in its creation is also ignored. Then the individuals’ education and socioeconomic status and separately their parent’s socioeconomic status (which again were the results of models) were put into a model with “g” and “conservative ideology” to predict “racism” (the uncertainty of which, as was already said, was ignored)."
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5118Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
killersquirelFeb 13, 2012
I've read your posts "bro". The facts are dead on, simpleton.
atomheartmotherFeb 13, 2012
I really wasn't sure anyone would be able to effectively challenge Professor Briggs' analysis until you showed up with that bit of brilliance.
In fact I don't think anyone needs to now; your thoughtful, insightful rebuttal totally negates his analysis and conclusions. You've demonstrated again that studies like these aren't even necessary...if we have any doubt about Progressives' intellect being superior, we'll just call up one of your comments, and retreat in awe.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
killersquirelFeb 13, 2012
Actually dumbass, I'm not challenging Professor Briggs at all. I'm calling you out for the piece of trash, low life hypocrite that you are.
Let's see simpleton. I brought up the DP to another poster and you went ape s**t. You used faulty twisted "logic" and childishly said "but..but...the other side has people that bury and run too!". Pathetic.
I was wondering why you cared so much when I brought up the digg partiots (a pathetic group of trash that try to suppress any other points of view) and then I saw that you are a member of that pathetic group.
Quick, quick, run and get all your little pathetic buddies and log into all of your sock puppet accounts and bury me. It will never change the fact that you are a pathetic piece of trash, "bro".
atomheartmotherFeb 13, 2012
"Actually dumbass, I'm not challenging Professor Briggs at all"
Exactly, because you're not capable of doing so.
And, as I indicated earlier, Professor Briggs does a wonderful job debunking this study for the leftist tripe it is. But really, one need only look at the sophomoric, inane commentary of people like yourself to realize that even if it were, there are obviously glaring exceptions.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
killersquirelFeb 13, 2012
"Exactly, because you're not capable of doing so."
And you know this how? I'm not discussing Professor Briggs or his study. I'm not discussing the study that this story is about. I'm discussing your hypocrisy and your lack of intelligence.
This was made abundantly clear when you went apes**t like a little girl when I brought up the digg patriots. You then shown how much of a piece of s**t you are when you used every attack your little mind could make, didn't know the difference of mocking your tiny little mind or what an excuse is, and then hypocritically left out information of my posts to attack me.
You're a perfect example of this article. How many times did you post that blog site? How many times did you feel threatened that your lack of intelligence was going to be found out?
You're nothing more than a tool. The fact that you are a member of the DP just goes to show that you're a piece of f**king trash on top of being a tool.
atomheartmotherFeb 13, 2012
"And you know this how?"
In a nutshell, because your comment history displays the cognitive acumen of a collection of Bazooka Joe comments.
killersquirelFeb 13, 2012
"In a nutshell, because your comment history displays the cognitive acumen of a collection of Bazooka Joe comments."
Look at you. You're so clever. Did you think of that all by your little self, or did you get your scumbag digg patriot friends to help you with that?
bluto36Feb 13, 2012
now killersquirel is just outright lying. how many DP are there? how many are in this thread?
you are using the DP and the bogus reputation to make up for your limited ability to converse in this thread.
it is the Digg "progressive" version of "so you got a big butt" and you use it as much as anyone here.
anyone on digg, still crying about the DP's has no clue about them or is straight up lying.
so are you a douchebag liar or a clueless douchebag?
killersquirelFeb 14, 2012
You know it's been awhile since I talked with someone that offers nothing useful or intelligent to say. Oh look, how have you been bluto?
Considering the tool that I was referring to atomheartmother is a digg patriot (you know those pieces of trash who claim they're American by trying to suppress others opinions) that would mean that you bluto don't know what the hell you're talking about.
How am I lying Bluto? Is that what you use to attack people that you lack the intelligence to converse with? I'm not complaining about the DP, I could careless that there is a bunch of hypocrite pieces of trash that bury my comments or feel the need to lie about me or what I've said.
So let me ask you Bluto.
Are you a f**king piece of trash or a piece of f**king trash?
roguegeniusFeb 13, 2012
"The facts are in question, to say the least."
No they aren't. What you mean to say is the STUDY is in question. You provided nothing for back even that up, but the facts are the facts. There is no question about them.
atomheartmotherFeb 13, 2012
"What you mean to say is the STUDY is in question. "
Right, and Professor Griggs pointed out quite succinctly that the conclusions it (and simpletons like yourself) puts forth as facts, aren't.
"You provided nothing for back even that up..."
Are you Chinese, illiterate or both?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 13, 2012
I don't even know what article you are even reading. The one referenced not only doesn't have that name in it, but it very long, succinct, and loaded with data.
Oh, and calling me Chinese as if it were a curse probably does not help your cause that you are NOT a racist. The more you speak, the more like the article you become.
roguegeniusFeb 13, 2012
Oh, never mind. I see. You cited your own article. Aparently the one we were actually talking about was too ironclad to break down, so you tried the old switch-a-roo.
atomheartmotherFeb 13, 2012
Rogue, you prove yourself more cognitively challenged with every keystroke. Chinese is not a race, you imbecile.
"You cited your own article."
Yes, the one from William M. Briggs, Adjunct Professor of Statistical Science at Cornell University.
Care to refute it?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 13, 2012
Didn't even read it -- couldn't even find it, just the name. Couldn't even figure where you pulled it out of your ass. But a quick google search on the name (trying to figure out what you were talking about) let me to the usual sources: National Review, the "Libertarian" something or other. Stopped searching and came back at that point. Not my job -- look up the peer review process Again, you couldn't win on the facts at hand, so you ran to your usual places for lies and got some. Congrats, you continue to confirm the the study you wish to refute.
Paraphrase if for me. You are the 'seller.' Sell me on it. You know me, if you are right I'll admit it. But you have to actually be right.
atomheartmotherFeb 13, 2012
I'll do one better. From the actual smackdown itself:
"Watch out Sam Harris, Gordon Hodson and Michael A. Busseri of Brock University are giving you competition for the worst use of statistics in an original paper.
Their “Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact” published in Psychological Science1—headlined in the press as Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice—is a textbook example of confused data, unrecognized bias, and ignorance of statistics....
One would have guessed from the title, that the authors looked at how the scores on the intelligence questions correlated with the scores on the attitude and racism questions, taking into account the uncertainty in the reliability. You would be wrong.
They first modeled the intelligence questions to create one “latent” (unobserved) measure, called “g”. The uncertainty in creating “g” is then ignored in all subsequent analysis. They did the same for the attitude questions, creating a “latent” (actually unobserved) variable called “conservative ideology.” Uncertainty in its creation is also ignored. Then the individuals’ education and socioeconomic status and separately their parent’s socioeconomic status (which again were the results of models) were put into a model with “g” and “conservative ideology” to predict “racism” (the uncertainty of which, as was already said, was ignored).
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5118Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Dr_RightFeb 13, 2012
If it shows up on Alternet, it has an agenda.... and is, therefore, questionable. (Poor information)
..... Since they are leftists, they have no problem with lying..... and their readers have no problem believing lies. (low intelligence).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The_SovereignFeb 13, 2012
It's the other way around, though, as you demonstrate every day.
woj1sFeb 13, 2012
The thumbs say youre name is now "Dr_Wrong!"
Dr_RightFeb 13, 2012
I expect nothing less from mindless Alternet readers.
stevanoskiFeb 13, 2012
lol
superkendallFeb 14, 2012
To the contrary, every leftists sheeple downvote illuminates his point all the brighter.
pc25Feb 12, 2012
yeah just like your global warming bs that everyone is backing off of.....talk about poor massaged information. Talk about low intelligence, oh, wait!! look who posted it....
http://notrickszone.com/2012/02/06/body-blow-to-german-global-warming-movement-major-media-outlets-unload-on-co2-lies/
Body Blow To German Global Warming Movement! Major Media Outlets Unload On “CO2 Lies!”
That’s what Germany’s leading daily Bild (see photo) wrote in its print and online editions today, on the very day that renowned publisher Hoffmann & Campe officially released a skeptic book – one written by a prominent socialist and environmental figure.
This is huge. More than I ever could have possibly imagined. And more is coming in the days ahead! The Bild piece was just the first of a series.
Mark this as the date that Germany’s global warming movement took a massive body blow.
Today, not one, but two of Germany’s most widely read news media published comprehensive skeptical climate science articles in their print and online editions, coinciding with the release of a major climate skeptical book, Die kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun).
Germany has now plunged into raucus discord on the heated topic of climate change
What has set it all off? One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”
Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Persuaded by Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science.
Conclusion: climate catastrophe is called off
The science was hyped. The book started hitting the bookshops today and has already hit no. 1 on the Amazon.de list for environment books. Indications show that it will climb very high in the overall bestseller charts. It’s published by a renowned publishing house and is now sending shock waves through the German climate science establishment. The first printing will produce 20,000 copies. I expect they will sell out rather quickly.
Today Germany’s national tabloid Bild (which has a whopping circulation of 16 million) devoted half of page 2 on an article called:
THE CO2 LIE
Renowned team of scientists claim the climate catastrophe is fear-mongering by politics“
The widely read Bild will follow with the rest of the series in the days ahead. In part I today Bild presents “What the IPCC of the UN doesn’t tell you.” Bild asks “what if the IPCC is wrong? Can we really blindly trust these experts? Are they really independent?”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html
He is typical of someone who came of age during the student protest movement of the late 1960s, and who fought against the chemical industry's toxic manufacturing plants in the 1970s. His party, Germany's center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), chose him as environment senator in the city-state of Hamburg, where he incurred the wrath of the environmental lobby by building a waste incineration plant, earning him the nickname "Feuerfritze" (Fire Fritz). He worked in industry after that, first for oil multinational Shell and then for wind turbine maker RePower, which he helped develop. Now, as the outgoing CEO of the renewable energy group RWE Innogy, he is about to embark on his next major battle. "I'm going to make enemies in all camps," he says.
He wants to break a taboo. "The climate catastrophe is not occurring," he writes in his book "Die Kalte Sonne" (The Cold Sun), published by Hoffmann and Campe, which will be in bookstores next week.
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/02/11/documents-show-u-n-chief-and-top-aides-plotted-global-green-economy-agenda-inequity-the-single-greatest-threat-to-the-world/
Documents Show U.N. Chief And Top Aides Plotted Global “Green Economy” Agenda — “Inequity The Single Greatest Threat” To The World…Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Feb 12, 2012
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.
Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.
The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.
In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.
When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
laurahoustonFeb 12, 2012
good, maybe the glaciers will come back to Glacierless National Park.
pc25Feb 12, 2012
what don't you understand about natural cyclical warming cycles and the massaging of data to advance a political agenda.
mtownFeb 13, 2012
You're the one with no clue about "natural cyclical warming cycles".
While they do exist, the Malankovitch cycles change things over thousands, if not millions of years. Not a few centuries.
http://geography.about.com/od/learnabouttheearth/a/milankovitch.htm
concusionFeb 13, 2012
there's no point in even arguing with this guy, he picked his 1 article out of 1 million and he will site it over and over again when anyone contests him. Government is a bunch of worthless f**k ups to him and his ideology, yet the minute he can manipulate it, he brings out NASA as the final authority, meanwhile the guy who wrote that article for Yahoo has been a "hoaxist" forever, you can pull up every article the guy writes and see he does not look objectively.
pc25Feb 13, 2012
too bad the article is from NASA the darlings of the Global Warming movement when the warmists were pushing the NASA data as proof positive for man made global warming. You know all that faulty NASA data the CRU used for their calculations and that all the NASA satellites were calibrated with to give credence to those CRU calculations. Another inconvenient fact.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
woj1sFeb 13, 2012
Leave it to conservatives to make NASA the bad guy. What kind of backwards planet do these people live in?!
pc25Feb 13, 2012
Nasa says you're wrong
publiclurkerFeb 13, 2012
no, it doesn't. Stop pretending you have they intelligence to understand anything they have to say. It offends those of us who actually are capable of understanding things beyond a third grade level.
mtownFeb 13, 2012
NASA says I'm wrong about the Milankovitch Cycles?
Hmmmm, well then why do they say the exact same thing i said ON THEIR OWN SITE?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_Evidence/
Now please link me something on the official NASA site that claims global warming isn't real.
crom99Feb 13, 2012
This Roy Spencer thing has already been debunked. Thanks for adding weight to the premise of the article.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/
angrycat70Feb 13, 2012
More bulls**t from alternet.
This is like some little kid saying that because you don't agree with them you are a poopie pants meanie.
Closed AccountFeb 13, 2012
More embarrassment from alternet
publiclurkerFeb 13, 2012
Well, if you are constantly being embarrassed by the facts being shown to you, why don't you pull your head out of your ass and grow up?
karmashockFeb 13, 2012
... you're bad at math.
If both parties have to get a majority or at least a plurality to get an elected... and the majority is by definition not some small intellectual elite... how exactly are the democrats winning elections unless stupid people vote for them?
The reality is that stupid people are in both parties. You can't win an election without the stupid vote.
Do you honestly think the democrats are intellectually superior when your party makes a point of pandering to the welfare recipients in every election? By definition those are not going to be the great minds of the nation.
I'm not claiming the republicans are any smarter. I'm claiming instead that the very question of intelligence in popular politics is itself stupid.
Ironically, your support of this study betrays your own ignorance... if not outright stupidity. It can't be true for the same reason that 1+1 can't equal 11. It's logically impossible.
Now, might the left's tiny intellectual elite be slightly larger then the republican's tiny intellectual elite? Sure... but it's also irrelevant because it doesn't let you claim that either party is actually any smarter then the other. In both parties the majority of people are "average." Both parties have lots of stupid people. And both parties have a tiny intellectual elite. Both parties are a cross section of the general American public.
This would be obvious to you if you weren't clearly a bit of an idiot yourself. The article was probably targeted at you. These studies make stupid people feel better about themselves. They think "well, I'm with the smart people so I'm smart too"... only you're too dumb to realize that it's just propaganda. And even if it were entirely true you'd still be stupid. Being a democrat doesn't make you intelligent any more then buying an iPhone makes you cool. You'll still be the same fat bald man living in his mother's basement... with an iphone.
Sorry if that's insulting... I try to avoid that... but the very nature of this topic is offensive.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
schmuckofniFeb 13, 2012
More partisan drivel. The only people with low intelligence are those who think congress and this president are doing an awesome job. Both parties suck. Move on.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherFeb 13, 2012
Ah yes..I just love to watch the insecurity of leftists revealed by posting a dubious foreign study to convince themselves they are better than others.
And I'm sure that the brilliant diggers we see commenting here and their friends at OWS would absolutely skewer William M. Briggs for suggesting that this "study" is essentially worthless, right? After all, he's only an Adjunct Professor of Statistical Science at Cornell University.
"One would have guessed from the title, that the authors looked at how the scores on the intelligence questions correlated with the scores on the attitude and racism questions, taking into account the uncertainty in the reliability. You would be wrong.
They first modeled the intelligence questions to create one “latent” (unobserved) measure, called “g”. The uncertainty in creating “g” is then ignored in all subsequent analysis. They did the same for the attitude questions, creating a “latent” (actually unobserved) variable called “conservative ideology.” Uncertainty in its creation is also ignored. Then the individuals’ education and socioeconomic status and separately their parent’s socioeconomic status (which again were the results of models) were put into a model with “g” and “conservative ideology” to predict “racism” (the uncertainty of which, as was already said, was ignored)."
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5118Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 13, 2012
Why so angry? It's statistics. Nobody said 'atom is NOT the exception.' You just assumed it applied directly to you. Maybe it does, but that is not expressly stated.
Facts are facts. And the foreign origin just means they are outsiders and have nothing vested. If anything that makes it MORE reliable.
atomheartmotherFeb 13, 2012
"Facts are facts."
Right. And as Professor Briggs showed in detail, the conclusion reached in this study doesn't contain any.
As to the "foreign origin just means they are outsiders and have nothing vested" contention, it's not credible. Conservative vs liberal isn't a struggle limited to the United States.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
killersquirelFeb 13, 2012
You're so quick to say that this article is full of lies and that Professor Briggs is pure fact.
I guess when you feel your lack of intelligence is going to be exposed you will believe whole heartedly (and post it repeatedly) in anything that can give you a glimmer of hope that you won't be exposed for the tool that you are.
It's really quite pathetic.
atomheartmotherFeb 13, 2012
"You're so quick to say that this article is full of lies and that Professor Briggs is pure fact. "
Could you be any more of a mental midget? By definition, people--such as Professor Briggs here--cannot be "pure fact", that's reserved for things. It's a matter of proper English, an exercise in which you've proven yourself woefully deficient time and again.
You really need a better edumacation bro. You're embarrassing yourself.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
killersquirelFeb 13, 2012
I find it funny "bro" that you obviously have nothing to attack me with, so you claim I need an education. My grammar is proper English, but that won't stop you from attacking me on that front.
What's the matter atom? You aren't clever enough to come up with anything of substance to attack me on? Are all your little jack off digg patriot friends unavailable to help you on that?
Are you not feeling like a man today, "bro"? It's pretty apparent from your comments that you aren't much of a man.
I really pity you.
atomheartmotherFeb 13, 2012
In order to "come up with anything of substance to attack you on", you'd have to actually write something of substance at some point. And you've proven time and again that you're incapable of doing so.
I realize that you were jerking yourself off to the false narrative this "study" presents, and that it's really, really difficult to accept the fact that someone like myself--a conservative--is clearly your intellectual superior. But really bro, it's not my fault...you lefties are all about Darwin; blame it on him.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 13, 2012
You are really angry about this. I understand, this is striking close to home, but again, facts are facts. The FIRST people to admit that the Republican base are "Low educated white males" are the republican political tacticians. This study just puts numbers to what everyone already knows.
atomheartmotherFeb 13, 2012
Not angry at all rogue. Why would I be, when this tripe was so thoroughly and completely debunked?
roguegeniusFeb 13, 2012
Ok. Maybe if you were a little smarter or better educated you'd see that you were wrong... Of course, you probably would change your views if you were. Just saying...
atomheartmotherFeb 13, 2012
I'm just a digger. But if you think Professor Briggs is wrong in terms of his analysis, by all means take a stab at refuting it.
killersquirelFeb 14, 2012
"I realize that you were jerking yourself off to the false narrative this "study" presents, and that it's really, really difficult to accept the fact that someone like myself--a conservative--is clearly your intellectual superior"
This is funny on so many levels "bro".
There are many conservatives that I would consider my intellectual superior, but you are far from that. You are a sad pathetic little man.
I also find it funny that you sad pathetic rightwing pieces of trash feel the need to claim that you are intellectually superior than others here on digg. Do you feel the need to do it because you have to convince even yourself that you are? You have no confidence in yourself and rely on GOP talking points and what your trash little digg patriot friends tell you to think.
You really are a pathetic piece of trash, but if it makes you feel better about yourself feel free to tell everyone how intellectually superior you are. Apparently you need to do that.
atomheartmotherFeb 14, 2012
"There are many conservatives that I would consider my intellectual superior..."
I agree, with the caveat that you also include progressives, independents, moderates, atheists, agnostics, religious people, felons, Scientologists, merchant marines, expats, the functionally illiterate and Snookie.
Basically bro, you (and your sockpuppet alter-egos) are a blithering idiot. So much so that you don't even realize how completely ignorant you are.
Must be blissful.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 13, 2012
"Conservative vs liberal isn't a struggle limited to the United States."
Actually, it is. In other nations they are more honest and tie their right wing to the raciest and fascist policies they actually represent. This is really the only country that hasn't embraced the enlightenment, let alone the post-modern era. We are really in a unique situation here.
stevanoskiFeb 13, 2012
Broad-brush strokes make it easier for those with limited time, mental abilities or biases to build boxes for folks they disagree with in order not to associate them as their fellow humankind.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bookantFeb 13, 2012
"Nobody said 'atom is NOT the exception.'"
Allow me to fix that oversight.
Atom is NOT the exception.
roguegeniusFeb 13, 2012
I suspect that as well, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt when he is not actively proving it.
radiofreeopiumFeb 13, 2012
"Ah yes..I just love to watch the insecurity of leftists revealed by posting a dubious foreign study to convince themselves they are better than others."
Conservative logic: foreign = bad
study/research = worseComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
karmashockFeb 13, 2012
While this is true in certain segments of the party the same thing could be said of the left.
Both parties include stupid people. The left can't pretend it's only a party of rocket scientists and post industrial philosophers when they enter every election sucking up to the welfare rolls or trying to bolster their numbers by attracting more undocumented immigrants to join their ranks.
Are there some inbred hillbillies in the republican party? Absolutely... there are only two parties for anyone to really join in this country. So they're going to join one or the other. Claiming one is for smart people is itself stupid.
There aren't enough smart people to be politically relevant. Smart tends to put you in the 10th percentile or higher.
So what does that mean mathematically.
See where I'm going here?
I just proved this stupid article wrong. With math.
Assuming the democrats had ALL the smart people they would still be outnumbered in their own party by stupid people at a ratio of 4 to 1.
Why did all those stupid people join the smart party if they're no more intelligent then the stupid republicans?
Ideology isn't an intelligence test, morons.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherFeb 13, 2012
The "study" is crap:
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5118
karmashockFeb 13, 2012
I don't need to read that to know it's crap.
It's logically impossible for intelligence to play a factor in ideological choices between the two main american parties since both of them need to occasionally get a majority vote. The majority by definition is not the intellectual elite.
Now if we had ten or more political parties THEN it MIGHT be possible for one of them to be dominated by "smart people." But if there are only two and they have to get a majority... then we're not talking about smart people.
Furthermore, the claim is made further absurd by the left's endless pandering to welfare recipients which by definition are not going to be the great minds of our nation. Go through the rest of their constituent factions and you'll find few that are noted for their intelligence.
I don't say any of this to claim republicans are smarter. I wish they were but they're not. They're the same people with different opinions. The intrinsic intelligence of both factions is similar if not identical. One could make arguments about which party is wiser but I have no idea how you'd actually graph that.
As a member of the 99th percentile who happens to be a republican... I find the whole idea of this "study" to be a little sad. No one with any brains buys this argument for a second. It makes no sense.
I can only assume it's there to make stupid and insecure liberals feel better about themselves. This is again not to imply that all liberals are stupid or insecure... merely that this bit of fluff was put out to make the lackwits in their faction feel like they're members of the in crowd.
It's a fairly common bit of propaganda. Companies like to do that with their products. Much of the Apple revolution has been about it's perceived fashion. All the cool people have one, right? So if I get one then I'm one of the cool people!
It's a stupid study for stupid people. The intelligent amongst the left understands this as easily as the intelligent amongst the right.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 13, 2012
"I don't need to read that to know it's crap."
And that, in a nutshell, is exactly why the study is believable.
karmashockFeb 13, 2012
Really?
So if I offered a study that claimed 2+2=9 you'd of course be honor bound to read that prior to declaring it crap?
here are your choices...
1. Karma is right.
2. Rogue is an idiot.
take your time.
You can't possibly be the smart party because it's impossible for either party to be the smart one. They're both composed of normal people. You can't win a popular election otherwise.
It's math and you're stupid.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 13, 2012
No, friend. 2+2=9 is irrational on it's face. But change the 'offensive' words to something less loaded. Say 'uneducated.' Are you denying the average republican is less educated than everyone else? Let's be blunt, because your own pendants race handicappers are. The republican base is the white, high school educated demographic. You know it's true, I know it's true. Karl Rove knows it's true (and not only admits it, but seems oddly proud of it). Why is is wrong to say it in a study?
You don't like it, but this study just puts the statistics to what everyone already knows.
karmashockFeb 13, 2012
I also just noticed someone dugg you up... proof positive that there are lots of idiots in the democratic party.
Now, I don't claim that there aren't plenty in the republican party. Neither side could win an election if they didn't have a fair number of twits. It's a numbers game. But honestly... you're trying to argue you're more intelligent while at the same time using a STUPID argument that only a STUPID person would not realize is STUPID.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 13, 2012
Your not liking it doesn't make it wrong or stupid. There are a lot of things I don't like, I just admit them.
karmashockFeb 13, 2012
Where did I say "This is wrong because I don't like it"? Nowhere. I said it's wrong because the intelligent are a minority in all human populations and the US decides elections by popular vote. There is no intelligence test on ballots so idiots can vote and idiots out number smart people.
As a result... if you were right and republicans were stupid... we'd win every election ever and you'd have no hope of ever winning one unless you somehow out breed the stupid people.
The logic is very clear. Do you honestly not grasp this or are you just being stubborn so you don't have to admit you were wrong? Because in either case that's pretty sad.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 13, 2012
First of all, nobody said ALL republicans are stupid. They said, right there in the headline, low intelligence and poorly informed. Low intelligence is hard to parse, but education and 'informed' tend to go hand in hand. And statistics aside, there is nobody in the world; left, right or center, that don't agree that if you are white, male and only have a high school or equivalent degree, you are probably republican. If you have ANY higher degree, you probably are not.
Forget the studies. Go to your nearest Republican political organization and ask who they target. Not only are the results of this well known, they are positively common knowledge.
karmashockFeb 13, 2012
... You're not grasping a very simple concept.
Popular election.
Do you know what that means?
Okay. Democrats win them. Right?
Okay. So there are lots of stupid, uneducated, etc people in the democratic party. Right?
Okay. Why are stupid people voting for democrats if it's the party for smart people?
Take your time.
Maybe because intelligence didn't have anything to do with their affiliation. Twit.
As to education, that was not the claim made by this thread. It claimed low intelligence.
A man living in a mud hut 2000 years ago could a thousand times smarter then anyone today without attaining what you would consider an education.
So there isn't really a link between intelligence and education.
If your claim is merely education, then that changes the nature of the argument entirely.
For one thing, you're assuming that the best place to get higher education is in college. While that's true for the sciences, it isn't true for many professions. You're further assuming that this higher education had anything to do with their political choices. If they were democrats in grade school then it doesn't make sense to claim that it was their college education that made them democrats. You'd have to demonstrate some change over time. You could claim it at an earlier age if you were making the intelligence claim. But since you gave that up you have to show the education actually changing someone.
Furthermore, many studies have been done that try to match up intelligence with income. It has been found that there is some correlation but it is inconsistent. The best statistical measure of intelligence is actually wealth. Not income or education. Think of it this way, a stupid person can win the lotto ticket or have a high paying job that doesn't require brains. But stupid people lose their money, don't invest it well, and generally piss it all away.
So see which faction has more money.
Of course, if you win that argument and prove your faction has more money and therefore intelligence... then it will make your whole "1 versus 99" argument seem... well... stupid.
The whole nature of your argument is shallow. You're just sitting their masturbating on various stupid topics without even understanding them. If you want to come off as the intellectual superior you might want to attempt a detached intellectual approach. I doubt you're able to do that... but for future reference it would improve your credibility.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
karmashockFeb 13, 2012
meant 90th percentile...
roguegeniusFeb 13, 2012
"Ideology isn't an intelligence test, morons."
True, but politics and ideology have little to do with each other. Also, though I don't have a study to back this up, I'm fairly sure you'll find people without an ideology at all average higher intelligence than people who do.
Ideology is a straightjacket that prevents you from acting honestly and rationally. It forces you to be less intellectually 'nimble.'
roguegeniusFeb 13, 2012
I would go on to say, now that I think about it, the not only are people of lower intelligence (on average, of course) more attracted to ideologies, adopting an ideology further lowers the intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to use data in one area to help you in another. It's about making connections, connecting dots. Once you believe in any one thing, you've limited that ability.
karmashockFeb 14, 2012
you think the US became prosperous because of the new deal? You fail at history, economics, and logic.
The US was prosperous before the new deal. Our highest national growth long preceded it. Furthermore, the new deal couldn't possibly have anything to do with future prosperity because it did nothing that would positively effect the economy. How does social security increase GDP? I mean, that's just stupid. I feel sorry for you. And then there's just the illogic of your robber baron comment. Do you know when the robber barons where? They were dealt with before the great depression even started let alone FDR's new deal. In fact, if you had bothered to do any research it is believed by many economists that FDR's meddling with the economy, his price controls, his interference with labor policy... made the Great Depression longer and deeper.
Your whole comment is just pathetically ignorant and uneducated. And you're still claiming to belong to an intellectual elite? Lolcats.
The north was an industrial powerhouse before the Civil War, retard. That was how we kicked your stupid democrat asses into the pavement and then rubbed sand in your eyes. And before you claim to have severed your bonds with the old democratic party... what is your opinion of Ulysses S Grant, General Sherman, and the rest of the Union Generals that the southern democrats tried to demonize after the war. With the exception of Lincoln who was merely assassinated, every single one of them was branded a drunk, a monster, a coward, or some other distasteful attribute by the democrats. And most modern democrats still hold many of these views despite residing in the north. And the Radical Republicans that pushed for the abolition of slavery... forgotten.
We're not as good at propaganda as your ilk. We have to give you that. But you rot everything you touch. If we gave you everything you ever wanted you'd just f' it up like everything else.
In any case, the only appropriate response to your idiocy is the following:
http://www.maniacworld.com/pool-table-on-a-ship.html
karmashockFeb 14, 2012
oops, I'm VNCing into the computer that I'm posting from and it didn't capture the clip board properly... anyway:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
roguegeniusFeb 14, 2012
Oh, one last thing to set straight.
"In fact, if you had bothered to do any research it is believed by many economists that FDR's meddling with the economy, his price controls, his interference with labor policy... made the Great Depression longer and deeper."
Total bulls**t. It is believed by very few, well funded 'economists' owned by 'think tanks.' This all came from one paper from two California 'economists,' both already famous for the right wing beliefs, who came up with this. The rest was derivative of that deeply flawed and long debunked study. That is hardly 'many.' It is more like 'a few,' and they aren't of the quality that get invited to parties.
karmashockFeb 15, 2012
And if you were even remotely honest, you'd acknowledge that the standard for "invited to party" equals "agrees with everything I say."
So... and so science becomes dogma and dogma becomes religion.
You can't even begin to explain how price controls and welfare programs "saved" the american economy. It's so irrational that it's almost funny.
roguegeniusFeb 15, 2012
If you were honest you would admit that 'invited to parties' means "people respectable enough to be seen with professionally.'
And you are right, you didn't ask about that and I didn't answer (because you didn't ask). The answer, of course, it very little of the New deal dealt with that. What the new deal was about was creating good paying jobs and putting money in pockets. Money (demand) draws supply (business), and that is really all it too. Think of it as 'Demand side' economics. It's very much like 'supply side' economics... except that it actually works.
But to you (a liar) can't win when you are honest about the New Deal. So you try to defeat it on what it wasn't. You pile weakness on top of weakness.
roguegeniusFeb 14, 2012
"you think the US became prosperous because of the new deal? You fail at history, economics, and logic."
No. I KNOW the US became a superpower because of the New Deal. There is no question about that and never has been. Why do you think there are so many right-wing books and "studies" on the subject? Because when your position is 'the sky is not blue' you have to do a lot of work to keep people from simply looking up. 'cuz once they do... blueness everywhere.
"The US was prosperous before the new deal"
Not really, though now we have to go into what is prosperous. Is a big GNP prosperous? Rockefeller was VERY 'prosperous,' while the people starved. That's not prosperity. It may be Ron Paul's wet dream, but it was a nightmare for 99% of the people in the system. You talk about a gun to the head -- that was the time there were guns to your head! Work for your pittance or die. Children were chained to their workstations. You would get underpaid in company money that was only good at company stores and if you DARE talk about unionizing you got your head broke -- and even the hired goon who broke your head was underpaid. America was not prosperous before the New Deal ended all that. That's why it was called the new deal.
"
Your whole comment is just pathetically ignorant and uneducated. And you're still claiming to belong to an intellectual elite? Lolcats."
That's just a comment. And an ignorant one at that. Do you anything actually to say here?
"The north was an industrial powerhouse before the Civil War, retard"
When you are talking to someone who is obviously running circles around you it behooves to address them as MISTER retard, thank you.
And the North was industrial prior to the civil war. I don't recall that I said otherwise. But a powerhouse? Compared to what? London? I don't think so. But compared to Atlanta or somewhere, sure. It was WAY more industrial than those areas. I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here. Or if you are just bickering for the sake of bickering, which is ok. I write mostly for the lurking audience, not the person who doesn't want to learn.
"That was how we kicked your stupid democrat asses into the pavement and then rubbed sand in your eyes."
I am completely lost on what we are even talking about here. I don't recall that, and prior to the Civil War, and after it as well, the democrats were the 'conservative' party. (I quote that because the term didn't even come up till Calhoon coined it. Though there were 'conservative' parties in Europe.)
I've lost the path here, what are we talking about?
"what is your opinion of Ulysses S Grant, General Sherman, and the rest of the Union Generals that the southern democrats tried to demonize after the war."
Uh, I think they were the guys that finally won the war. The South hated them and love Mechellin (sp? Sorry, I'm not bothering to google anything, because you are off on a tangent and I don't see what this has to do with anything. I'm not even sure you meant to post all this to me) because he just sat on his hans and let Lee run wild. But when Lincoln fired him and put Grant in charge, the war was pretty much over at that point. Because Grant was finally willing to actually fight. Lee did pretty well before there was a real war, but once Grant was put on the job it was all over but the battles.
What has this ancient history have to do with anything?
"And most modern democrats still hold many of these views despite residing in the north. "
Actually, they don't. But northerns are more honest about the flaws of their warriors than the south. You would think Lee was a benighted saint. Northerners tend not to play the canonization game.
"And the Radical Republicans that pushed for the abolition of slavery... forgotten."
VERY TRUE and not forgotten. Neither is the fact the two parties switched ethos between FDR era and and the LBJ era. But I"m still not seeing where this is going.
"We're not as good at propaganda as your ilk"
Who is we? If you are talking about the South you have got to be f**king kidding me. Margret Mitchel? Please, there is NOTHING but propaganda about that era from the South. Nothing. Every single aspect of life have been 're-imagined' by those that would turn the Confederacy into "The Lost Cause." It's all a total lie and it's even taught in some Northern Schools.
I like that link (it came though fine, btw) thank you for it. But I still don't see what, if anything, this whole screed had to do with.
karmashockFeb 13, 2012
Wait wait... you think Politics has little to do with ideology?
*laughs*
Okay. I'm clearly arguing with an idiot. I didn't realize. I thought we had a difference of opinion... and all along you were just stupid.
Cheers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 13, 2012
No, friend. I understand you've chosen to back a horse that can't win, but you don't just get to end the race you chose to run just because you are in last place.
Back to the point. Very little. Politics, especially Republican politics, are more of a sporting event. You root for a team. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of dems that are the same way. But no, look at your own posts here. Clearly you are 100% wrong on this subject, but you won't admit it. You don't want to give the 'other team' these points. Has nothing to do with ideology. Never did.
Be honest. Think back to your own political awakening. You were a republican first, and whatever your 'ideology' is second. It's a sport, not an ideology.
stevanoskiFeb 13, 2012
You have a valid point, particularly since you make it plain that it is on both sides. However, I don't believe you can read karma's mind so I think it is unfair to claim he is one of those you disdain. Could you have not just made your point without directing it as a personal attack?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 14, 2012
I don't disdain Karma, but I am kicking him pretty hard to get him to think. I don't care if he gets pissed off at me, as long as he is pissed for for real reasons, not blind dogma.
karmashockFeb 13, 2012
If you honestly think the democrats are any different then you're delusional on top of being stupid.
As to my ideological awakening, dead wrong. My parents taught me values. I didn't know what a republican was until I was twelve or something. And even then I didn't really relate to them.
My choice of affiliation has more to do with the democrats not sharing my values then it does with the republicans advancing them. THe republicans are not at least actively trying to destroy things I care about. So for all their faults they are the lesser of evils to me.
I do not view either side as being good or evil.
And if you were honest, which you won't be... you'd acknowledge that there is a great deal more hatred and emotion on your side then there is on mine.
Very simply, all I want is to be left alone. Give me that, and I'll vote for you.
Try to enslave me and I'd sooner join the armies of hell to eat your children then submit.
That's where I am. I don't care about the republicans. They're a tool. A means to my end. All I want is to be left be. Acknowledge my personal freedom and get out of my face... and I'll honor and defend you in return. Try to oppress me and I'll cut your nuts off with rusty pliers.
Regards, Karmashock.
roguegeniusFeb 13, 2012
"If you honestly think the democrats are any different then you're delusional on top of being stupid." -- quoted from you
"Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of dems that are the same way." -- quoted from me.
"As to my ideological awakening, dead wrong. My parents taught me values. I didn't know what a republican was until I was twelve or something."
Very dubious claim, but I'll buy if that's what you are selling. It's not impossible that it's true. My own didn't come about till I was in my late 30's. But I know I'm the exception, not the rule.
"And if you were honest, which you won't be... you'd acknowledge that there is a great deal more hatred and emotion on your side then there is on mine."
I will be honest, and your wrong. Very wrong. But I see where you make that mistake. You feel entitled to things that have been granted you and that pisses off those of us who have to pay for it. So you DO see a lot of anger, it's just completely justified anger. On the other side you see irrational, hate based anger. You claim you want honesty, there it is. I won't back away from the facts on that.
"Very simply, all I want is to be left alone."
Very simply, you want what we have built for you. Your sense of entitlement is AMAZING! You think just because it was there when you were born that somehow exempts you form paying for it. It doesn't, and you better get used to it, because the way we've been doing things is no longer acceptable.
"Try to enslave me and I'd sooner join the armies of hell to eat your children then submit."
Try to tell me again which side has the irrational anger?
"Acknowledge my personal freedom and get out of my face... and I'll honor and defend you in return."
Keep paying for the infrastructure and pickup up my tabs when I welsh on them and I'll honor and defend you in return. There, fixed that for you.
"Try to oppress me and I'll cut your nuts off with rusty pliers."
If you had any idea how unimpressive I find that, you would find a way to not post it. I've dealt with a lot of tough guys in the real world, and I usually find them wanting. Imagine how seriously I take internet threats.
karmashockFeb 13, 2012
first, we built this country if not more then the democrats then just as much. So claiming that your party needs tribute to compensate it for it's works is asinine. The republicans built the great industrial north. Not the democrats. The democrats in fact were responsible for the sorry state of affairs the south was in when the republicans inherited it.
And since we switched territory what has become of the great industrial north? It's rotted. And what has become of the once primitive and backward south? It's increasingly becoming the new industrial powerhouse of America. You want to know what YOU built? Look at Detroit after 1970. That's you. You turn everything you touch to crap. And then expect to be thanked for it.
Second, no I don't want what the government built for free. You're not like some greedy corporation always trying to sell me a new product I don't want. And then if I say I don't want it, you put a gun against my head, force me to buy it, and then claim I want it for free if I tell you I don't want to pay.
I DO NOT WANT IT. Very simply, why don't you set up your services so they're voluntary and those that sign up for them pay for them. See who actually wants what you're selling. Your whole system would collapse overnight because the reality is that people only want your product if someone else pays for it. And no one would pay for it unless forced at gun point. I do not want your service. Stop offering it and/or stop forcing me to pay for it. I don't want it. I am not against all taxes or all services. But any tax or service that does not benefit all Americans or is otherwise indispensable or does not otherwise produce a NET profit should be disbanded. You're robbing peter to buy votes from paul. It's beyond immoral. It's outright corrupt.
Third, as to irrational anger. I didn't say anger captain strawman. I said hate. I don't hate you. Dems have the market on that cornered. I do fear you. But I fear you in the way a terminal patient fears cancer. You don't hate the cancer. You just don't want to be eaten by it.
That's what your political faction is to us. Invasive, malignant... cancer. Spreading... implacable... destructive... terminal. You'd turn this country into what the Greeks are going through if we gave you free reign. THere are more then a few states that if they were countries they'd be in worse shape then greece. Obama's home state is currently writing bad checks... Consider how stupid that is... Chicago is a very wealthy city. It makes a lot of money. And even with all that profit to feed upon its never enough for you is it. You're just like a some rapacious colony of rodents that eat up all the resources, breed entirely out of control, and then cannibalization each other in some horror show of self destruction when you can't borrow or tax your way out of the problem anymore.
So again, we don't hate you. We have tried to compromise with you. We've repeatedly been told that if we just give you one more thing you won't ask for anything else. But you always betray us... it's never enough.
We're done playing with you. Your whole ideology has been negotiating in bad faith for generations. You're cheats, liars, and charlatans. I hold you in contempt... but I don't hate you. You don't know what you're doing. You're so blinded by your ideology that you don't see how destructive and self defeating everything you do is in the end. Everything you build will come to ruin... and sooner rather then later the more power and money you get. Your ideology is a parasite killing its host. If kept small and limited you'd be tolerable forever. But the larger you get the more you degrade the host's internal systems and the sooner you bring about your own end.
Finally, as to "internet threats".. the statement was clearly metaphorical... it was a rhetorical device, I have to point that out to you because you have problems acknowledging the obvious. It is ironic that you presume to be the intellectual superior when you've failed at every juncture to grasp even the simplest concept.
roguegeniusFeb 14, 2012
"first, we built this country if not more then the democrats then just as much."
I was't really talking about the democrats, but since you pressed that issue… Yes, it was the democrats who made America. We went from a back woods nation in the robber baron area to the worlds first superpower during the early years of the war. That was clearly and indisputably the New Deal. So while I wasn't really intentionally giving democrats credit (lately they have failed us -- though complicity -- almost as bad as the republicans. Almost.), they certainly deserve it. Every moment of your life, every time you flip on a light, drive you car or (if you live in the south) crap indoors, if you weren't a total ingrate you would thank FDR specifically and the democratic party in general. Republicans fought the building of America since they were… well, since they were democrats, as they were in the Civil War era.
"So claiming that your party needs tribute to compensate it for it's works is asinine."
I don't know who 'my party' is. I'm talking about the workers, the engineers and the thinking men who turned us from a backwater to a great nation. When I say 'we' I'm meaning the HONEST, BILL PAYING, WORKING men and women of this nation. The city builders, the culture builders and the people who make and pay for the stuff we ALL use.
"The republicans built the great industrial north. Not the democrats. The democrats in fact were responsible for the sorry state of affairs the south was in when the republicans inherited it."
I have know idea where you found an orifice containing that to pull out of it, but it's not even remotely correct. I don't really have anything to say other than you can't just make s**t up and call it history. Smart people know history and will correct you without my help. Get some education.
"And since we switched territory what has become of the great industrial north? It's rotted. And what has become of the once primitive and backward south? It's increasingly becoming the new industrial powerhouse of America. You want to know what YOU built? Look at Detroit after 1970. That's you. You turn everything you touch to crap. And then expect to be thanked for it."
The north tanked during the Reagan administration. Before him it was no prize, but there was plenty of good paying work (though the environment was a DISASTER - the River in Cleveland was so polluted at actually caught fire several times. So if you want to actually blame the democrats for something that is actually their fault, there is that. Of course, being wiser and more experienced, it's they that are the environmental party now.) But it was the destruction of the union work forces that so damaged the industrial back bone of this country, and left us in the sorry, republican made state we find ourselves in today.
And, seriously? You are PROUD of the South now? You are all underpaid, under worked, and despite all our problems we are STILL paying for your welfare states! The global warming you fools don't believe in is destroying texas, the industry regulation you don't believe in has turned the gulf of Mexico into one big oil toilet. Worst of all, instead of learning from the errors of the north, you are stupidly repeating them. Been to, say, New Orleans or Tampa lately? It's an industrial s**thole -- at least until the next hurricane washes away some of the filth because you dumb f**ks are too stupid to listen to them damn New England Jew intellectuals and build you sea walls to adequate, modern standards.
"Second, no I don't want what the government built for free. You're not like some greedy corporation always trying to sell me a new product I don't want. And then if I say I don't want it, you put a gun against my head, force me to buy it, and then claim I want it for free if I tell you I don't want to pay."
If you don't want it stay off the roads, stay off the power grid stay off the internet, and go back to s**tting outside. The problem is you DO want it. You use it every day -- but like that assh**e friend from high school who meets you for dinner, when the bill comes his billfold is always in his other pants. Well we've bought you so many dinners we can't afford it any more. Now you can either pay, or or go hungry. Now you are saying "what? I don't get to eat? I never asked to be fed, but now I'm entitled to it. I won't pay, but I still want.
Want you you want. The free ride is over.
"I DO NOT WANT IT. Very simply, why don't you set up your services so they're voluntary and those that sign up for them pay for them."
I'm actually kind of with you on that. My objection really isn't that you don't want to pay… it's that you still want the same rights and benefits as those of us who do pay. For example, if you would tattoo on your forehead "I did not pay for the mandated health care." I would be fine letting you off not paying -- or benefiting -- from it. That means, if you are injured, you pay the anmulance driver. Cash, you don't have that cash on you? Sorry, the 'go and get them' ambulance service is only for those who paid for it. They leave you on the street and if you die from a compound fracture that could have easily been treated, no problem. It was a service you chose not to avail yourself of. I have not problem with that.
The problem is, when you DO have that compound fracture, you are suddenly going to feel entitled to the service. You are going to say "what kind of civilization leaves a man to die in the street?" The answer, of course, is one of your own making,
"See who actually wants what you're selling."
Everybody. Including you.
"Your whole system would collapse overnight because the reality is that people only want your product if someone else pays for it."
EXACTLY MY WORDS. YOU want all the benefits of being an American -- you just feel I should be paying your bills you. I feel you are a f**king freeloader who we have carried WAY too long.
"And no one would pay for it unless forced at gun point."
Are you a broken record now? Stop using all the services and we'll talk!
" I do not want your service."
Fine. Then stop f**king using them. Jesus.
roguegeniusFeb 14, 2012
"first, we built this country if not more then the democrats then just as much."
I was't really talking about the democrats, but since you pressed that issue… Yes, it was the democrats who made America. We went from a back woods nation in the robber baron area to the worlds first superpower during the early years of the war. That was clearly and indisputably the New Deal. So while I wasn't really intentionally giving democrats credit (lately they have failed us -- though complicity -- almost as bad as the republicans. Almost.), they certainly deserve it. Every moment of your life, every time you flip on a light, drive you car or (if you live in the south) crap indoors, if you weren't a total ingrate you would thank FDR specifically and the democratic party in general. Republicans fought the building of America since they were… well, since they were democrats, as they were in the Civil War era.
"So claiming that your party needs tribute to compensate it for it's works is asinine."
I don't know who 'my party' is. I'm talking about the workers, the engineers and the thinking men who turned us from a backwater to a great nation. When I say 'we' I'm meaning the HONEST, BILL PAYING, WORKING men and women of this nation. The city builders, the culture builders and the people who make and pay for the stuff we ALL use.
"The republicans built the great industrial north. Not the democrats. The democrats in fact were responsible for the sorry state of affairs the south was in when the republicans inherited it."
I have know idea where you found an orifice containing that to pull out of it, but it's not even remotely correct. I don't really have anything to say other than you can't just make s**t up and call it history. Smart people know history and will correct you without my help. Get some education.
"And since we switched territory what has become of the great industrial north? It's rotted. And what has become of the once primitive and backward south? It's increasingly becoming the new industrial powerhouse of America. You want to know what YOU built? Look at Detroit after 1970. That's you. You turn everything you touch to crap. And then expect to be thanked for it."
The north tanked during the Reagan administration. Before him it was no prize, but there was plenty of good paying work (though the environment was a DISASTER - the River in Cleveland was so polluted at actually caught fire several times. So if you want to actually blame the democrats for something that is actually their fault, there is that. Of course, being wiser and more experienced, it's they that are the environmental party now.) But it was the destruction of the union work forces that so damaged the industrial back bone of this country, and left us in the sorry, republican made state we find ourselves in today.
And, seriously? You are PROUD of the South now? You are all underpaid, under worked, and despite all our problems we are STILL paying for your welfare states! The global warming you fools don't believe in is destroying texas, the industry regulation you don't believe in has turned the gulf of Mexico into one big oil toilet. Worst of all, instead of learning from the errors of the north, you are stupidly repeating them. Been to, say, New Orleans or Tampa lately? It's an industrial s**thole -- at least until the next hurricane washes away some of the filth because you dumb f**ks are too stupid to listen to them damn New England Jew intellectuals and build you sea walls to adequate, modern standards.
roguegeniusFeb 14, 2012
"Second, no I don't want what the government built for free. You're not like some greedy corporation always trying to sell me a new product I don't want. And then if I say I don't want it, you put a gun against my head, force me to buy it, and then claim I want it for free if I tell you I don't want to pay."
If you don't want it stay off the roads, stay off the power grid stay off the internet, and go back to s**tting outside. The problem is you DO want it. You use it every day -- but like that assh**e friend from high school who meets you for dinner, when the bill comes his billfold is always in his other pants. Well we've bought you so many dinners we can't afford it any more. Now you can either pay, or or go hungry. Now you are saying "what? I don't get to eat? I never asked to be fed, but now I'm entitled to it. I won't pay, but I still want.
Want you you want. The free ride is over.
"I DO NOT WANT IT. Very simply, why don't you set up your services so they're voluntary and those that sign up for them pay for them."
I'm actually kind of with you on that. My objection really isn't that you don't want to pay… it's that you still want the same rights and benefits as those of us who do pay. For example, if you would tattoo on your forehead "I did not pay for the mandated health care." I would be fine letting you off not paying -- or benefiting -- from it. That means, if you are injured, you pay the anmulance driver. Cash, you don't have that cash on you? Sorry, the 'go and get them' ambulance service is only for those who paid for it. They leave you on the street and if you die from a compound fracture that could have easily been treated, no problem. It was a service you chose not to avail yourself of. I have not problem with that.
The problem is, when you DO have that compound fracture, you are suddenly going to feel entitled to the service. You are going to say "what kind of civilization leaves a man to die in the street?" The answer, of course, is one of your own making,
"See who actually wants what you're selling."
Everybody. Including you.
"Your whole system would collapse overnight because the reality is that people only want your product if someone else pays for it."
EXACTLY MY WORDS. YOU want all the benefits of being an American -- you just feel I should be paying your bills you. I feel you are a f**king freeloader who we have carried WAY too long.
"And no one would pay for it unless forced at gun point."
Are you a broken record now? Stop using all the services and we'll talk!
" I do not want your service."
Fine. Then stop f**king using them. Jesus.
Stop offering it and/or stop forcing me to pay for it.
Bulls**t. I'm not a freeloading crybaby. I accept the ambulance service. I proudly drive in the interstates. Why should I live like an animal because you are you don't want it? Who are you? Nobody. The whole does not bow to you. Sorry, you aren't anywhere NEAR that important.
"I don't want it.
You keeps saying that… on the computer. Using the power grid, strung by union workers, build by ME! Over the internet, an extension of the military and university systems, designed by government workers and build by union workers.. And you seem immune to the laughable irony of your position. This is why Ron Paul doesn't get taken seriously. Like you he keeps delivering punchlines then wonders why everyone thinks he's a comedian.
You keep using there very things we are talking about to tell us you don't want them. You don't want them, stop using them! Then, and only then do you even have a case to build. But right now, while you are still a parasite… You are going to pay.
"I am not against all taxes or all services."
I know that. You are very happy to use things built by my taxes. It's not the taxes you object to is that fact that the rest of us do not recognize your august superiority and have the temerity to think that in addition to using our stuff, you should also contribute to it. Believe me, we are VERY well aware that you LOVE the benefits of taxes and services. You just can't seem to understand why an esteemed person such as yourself should pay the same as us 'worker bees.'
Trust me Karma, you have made yourself ABUNDANTLY CLEAR on that point.
"But any tax or service that does not benefit all Americans or is otherwise indispensable or does not otherwise produce a NET profit should be disbanded. You're robbing peter to buy votes from paul. It's beyond immoral. It's outright corrupt."
That is the dumbest thing ever. There is no agency making money on the interstate system. It's a 'net profit loss' to the gov't. But it is the single greatest boon to American business that has ever been created. Widgets made in 'A' can now be sold in 'B.' How much is that worth? Untold billions. And, since we have an income tax, some of that money does come back, but I doubt its as much as paid. But it's more than enough to keep it up. The benefit we all get just in increase prosperity is worth ten times what we pay for it.
Seriously, this is pretty basic stuff.
"Third, as to irrational anger. I didn't say anger captain strawman. I said hate."
You actually said: hatred and emotion. But I'll give it too you even though you clearly meant anger. You are lying, but I have way more rope than I need to hang you already.
"I don't hate you."
You should more than not hate me. You should love me. I'm the reason you don't crap outdoors. I'm your personal Cayman Islands bank account.
"I do fear you. But I fear you in the way a terminal patient fears cancer."
You should fear a little. Your whole 'something for nothing' way of life is coming to an end. But don't fear me, fear Issac Newton. It's the laws of thermodynamics you have a beef with, not me. You can not get something for nothing -- ever. And when you think you are, sooner or later that reservoir that you are tapping is going to dry up. I fear we are nearing that day. But I'm no threat to you, unless you think stopping getting a free gift every day is a 'threat.' I think it's just a changing of the billing arrangements. I wouldn't be the least bit annoyed if you weren't constantly telling me how entitled you are the fruits of my work.
"That's what your political faction is to us. Invasive, malignant... cancer. Spreading... implacable... destructive... terminal."
Nice image, but a bad metaphor is as bad as a leaky screwdriver. (Yuck, yuck)
I'm out of time. This took twenty minutes. Maybe I'll finish tomorrow, but I think the writing is on the wall of how this is going.
roguegeniusFeb 14, 2012
What a mess. Digg sucks now. Anyway, read what you can, and I'm sorry for the way it's arranged. I wrote in one field but had to cut and paste and cut and past to make it post.
superkendallFeb 14, 2012
Your theory is sound but you have the parties backwards. Only conservatives and engaged in real debate about what it means to be a Republican, and conservative - we have seen that in the primaries. We have seen that with the Tea Party (which the establishment Republicans dislike intensely as they took out some big name Republicans in the quest to introduce fiscal sanity even if it meant losing a few primaries).
The Democrats are a Team. They cheer only for the team, unthinking as to an idea on its own merits - they do what is best for the Team, not all of the players on both sides.
That is the saddest part because Democrats used to be able to have disagreements, no longer - it's what drove LIiberman out of the party (and boy does the Team HATE him for that!)
superkendallFeb 14, 2012
P.S. I believe it is incumbent on you to you to show us there are ANY examples of Democrats in power that are not simply acting "for the Team".
karmashockFeb 15, 2012
Oh, I just remembered you said FDR stopped the trusts and I responded that that happened before he was even elected.
Well... I just remembered it was TEDDY Roosevelt that busted the trusts and not FDR. Wrong Roosevelt... Guess what Teddy was... A republican.
If you had the honor of a sewer rat, you'd eat crow and admit how completely ignorant of history you are... as well as how ignorant you are of BASIC economics.
roguegeniusFeb 15, 2012
I don't remember saying that, but just in case: in the unlikely event I got that wrong, I whole heatedly admit it. I never said I was beyond mistakes, I'm just above LIES. Would that you were too.
And as a non-liar, can can not meet you all the way at 'completely ignorant of history' as that would clearly be a lie. But IF I made an error, and you point it out to me, I will amend it.
Of course, it actually has to be an error, not just some s**t you made up.
graphictruthFeb 13, 2012
Well, it could be said.
Just as it could be said that "karmashock" means wonderful person in Swahili.
It's obvious nonsense that I just made up.
And it's exactly as true, in exactly the same way as what you just said.
stevanoskiFeb 13, 2012
uhuru means peace in Swahili.
stevanoskiFeb 13, 2012
awww, peace got dugg down.
stevanoskiFeb 14, 2012
awww, "awww, peace got dugg down' got dugg down.
freakwhizzleFeb 14, 2012
THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY POSTED BY A LIBERAL.
roguegeniusFeb 14, 2012
Really? Somebody give Sherlock a cookie.
paintballer747Feb 13, 2012
Or perhaps a simple belief in conservative ideals. Oh sorry, too simple? Too unoffensive?
concusionFeb 13, 2012
you mean campaign on conservative ideals, get elected and go for big government and big spending?
vinaposFeb 13, 2012
http://www.vinapos.com.vn
http://www.wincor.com.vn
http://www.globalvision.com.vn