Are conservatives smarter than liberals?

[Mac1958]

.

So just to be sure I have this right...

Folks are still arguing over who's "smarter"?



.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I have often wondered is gullibility the sign of low intelligence or psychological issues. Who knows, but I did I did find this article interesting.
Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand?
Do Racism Conservatism and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand Psychology Today

Gullibility? Is it a sign of low intelligence?

Yes, it is.

A classic demonstration of how that works is found in Gruber's recent testimony regarding the stupidity of US electorate (FYI: he was referring to Democrats) and the need for Democrats to use deceit to avoid the law... in the construction of the bill. Which followed Pelosi's testimony "We'll have to pass the bill to see what's in the bill." Which was all preceded by "If you like your Doctor you can keep your Doctor", "If you like your plan you can keep your plan" and my personal fave: "CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEB IN!".

 

[LoneLaugher]

Wow! That's really groundbreaking theory you have there.

The OP was clear. The are differing degrees of this trait here.

Most of you guys like to bring up RDean all the time. Well....he's not stupid. He's just weird and has no filter. Whether or not he calls others stupid I couldn't tell you. I never read his shit any more.

Now....you have BigDerp in this thread calling every Obama supporter stupid. There are only a handful of USMB members who are less intelligent than BigDerp. Him calling most anyone besides Staph, Mud or Steve McRacist stupid is a huge pile of shit.

Tell him as much.

While there are exceptions... the average Democrat is dumber than a bag of Hammers.

If this were a real time discussion, I'd launch into asking ANY of the in-house comrades BASIC questions regarding civics, business, US and world history, science and you'd find that very few if ANY of the contributors who advocate through Left-think would be able to correctly answer any of them, while most Americans would have no trouble answering most... .

Go for it pea brain...you have a liberal right here ready to hammer you...

I'll be waiting....

LOL! You just couldn't help yourself could ya scout?

You've already failed... . Ya see, 'this' discussion isn't real time. Knowing how to run a search engine doesn't qualify as 'intelligence'.

Walking back the claim already, huh? Nice.

No....Bigfrn would simply use Google to find the answers.
If you cannot handle that, tough shit.

He wouldn't need google to answer civics questions. Why are you so mistrusting?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Every day on this board we seem to have threads about 'how stupid are libs?', 'dimbocrats', 'typical liberal stupidity'....you know the drill.

The strange thing is, I don't see a lot of posts claiming the opposite. Some comments, sure, but I think most people will agree that there are far, far more posts labelling liberalism as being in some way stupid, a mental illness etc than there are posts about conservatism claiming the same superiority.

I don't get this at all - I see no link between political views and intelligence. I've met some brilliant socialists, a couple of brilliant fascists, and everything in between. I have met enough painfully stupid liberals and painfully stupid conservatives that I don't think either side are in too great a position to start claiming a monopoly on smarts.

Isn't claiming 'liberalism is a mental illness' the kind of Catch 22 comment that only an intellectual dwarf could assume?

Or is there a reason that some conservatives believe they are intellectually superior?

Oh shut up, go read ANY RDean thread, as one example, and you will see a liberal claiming conservatives are stupid.

And guess what? Both views are wrong. There are smart and dumb liberals and smart and dumb conservatives.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Wow! That's really groundbreaking theory you have there.

The OP was clear. The are differing degrees of this trait here.

Most of you guys like to bring up RDean all the time. Well....he's not stupid. He's just weird and has no filter. Whether or not he calls others stupid I couldn't tell you. I never read his shit any more.

Now....you have BigDerp in this thread calling every Obama supporter stupid. There are only a handful of USMB members who are less intelligent than BigDerp. Him calling most anyone besides Staph, Mud or Steve McRacist stupid is a huge pile of shit.

Tell him as much.

While there are exceptions... the average Democrat is dumber than a bag of Hammers.

If this were a real time discussion, I'd launch into asking ANY of the in-house comrades BASIC questions regarding civics, business, US and world history, science and you'd find that very few if ANY of the contributors who advocate through Left-think would be able to correctly answer any of them, while most Americans would have no trouble answering most... .

Go for it pea brain...you have a liberal right here ready to hammer you...

I'll be waiting....

Only if you promise not to look up the answers to the questions.

There's no point of a Leftist making promises... as there's no potential for credibility behind the assertion.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I have often wondered is gullibility the sign of low intelligence or psychological issues. Who knows, but I did I did find this article interesting.
Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand?
Do Racism Conservatism and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand Psychology Today

Gullibility? Is it a sign of low intelligence?

Yes, it is.

A classic demonstration of how that works is found in Gruber's recent testimony regarding the stupidity of US electorate (FYI: he was referring to Democrats) and the need for Democrats to use deceit to avoid the law... in the construction of the bill. Which followed Pelosi's testimony "We'll have to pass the bill to see what's in the bill." Which was all preceded by "If you like your Doctor you can keep your Doctor", "If you like your plan you can keep your plan" and my personal fave: "CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEB IN!".

Gruber!!!!!!!!

Learn who he was talking about.

You've got tons of examples of gullible USMB nutters her on this forum.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Oh, so terms like 'moochers' is meant to be endearing...

I myself would never use that word.
People that can work for a living but take government assistance programs.
Why should they when the can get more in assistance than working in a low paying job?
Would most work at a job that pays 12,000.00 a year or get government assistance that pays 32,000.00 a year?

We found who the 47% Romney trashed really are...

America's safety net is below almost every other industrialized country in every measure. America more closely resembles the likes of Mexico than a modern First World industrialized nation.

We heard the ignorant rant of Mitt Romney and his 47%...

If there is a citizenry on this planet that does NOT have an entitlement mentality, it is the American people. American workers receive less benefits, paid leave, health care and take less vacation time than any other people. American workers take pride in the quality of their work and their work ethic.

What Romney said is a gross insult and reveals a dangerous mindset. He reeks of contempt for middle class working people and the poor.

Who are the 47%?

Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percent of the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

80 percent of the workforce has seen their wages decline in real terms over the last quarter-century, and the average household has seen 40 percent of its wealth disappear during the Great Recession. Through it all, families never asked for a handout from anyone, especially Washington. They were left to go on their own, working harder, squeezing nickels, and taking care of themselves. But their economic boats have been taking on water for years, and now the crisis has swamped millions of middle class families. ref ref

"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Maybe you should look at the latest polls to find out about the work ethic in the US.

"Nearly four in 10 Americans, or 92 million, are not in the labor force and now there’s a reason why: They have simply given up and don’t want to work.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the largest group of people not in the labor force are those who don’t want a job, a remarkable statement on the nation’s work ethic. The federal job counter said that 85.9 million adults last month didn’t want a job, or 93 percent of all adults not in the labor force.

APew Research Center analysisout Friday dug a bit deeper to find out who those people are. Many are younger Americans who seem far less interested it landing a job than previous generations, possibly discouraged by the lack of good-paying jobs.

“Women are more likely than men to say they don’t want a job, although the gap has been narrowing — especially since the Great Recession. Last month, 28.5 percent of men said they didn’t want a job, up from 23.9 percent in October 2000 and 25.2 percent in October 2008. For women, the share saying they didn’t want a job hovered around 38 percent throughout the 2000s but began creeping up in 2010, reaching 40.2 percent last month,” said the Pew analysis."

Giving up 40 women 28 men 39 youth don t want a job WashingtonExaminer.com

People that have given up, and are not looking for work.....are what's called "retired", and shouldn't be counted.

If you've given up, you're either on disability, found a sugar daddy or sugar mama, or you've just decided to tighhten your belts and let someone sit on the couch all day, or take care of the kids.

"A Pew Research Center analysis out Friday dug a bit deeper to find out who those people are. Many are younger Americans who seem far less interested it landing a job than previous generations, possibly discouraged by the lack of good-paying jobs."

The problem is not the number of jobs.
The issue has a number of factors.
One, with regard to Millenials..This generation is coddled and stroked by constant praising of the simplest and most mundane of accomplishments. Parents of these people spent every day telling their kid how great they were. The kids believe it and now that they have aged out( notice how I did not say "grown up") into the age of majority( notice how I did not say "Adulthood") these people have come to 'expect' things. They believe they are entitled to the high paying job. They are used to having things done for them. They do not have any conception of intense work or hardship. They have been sheltered from ever being disappointed.
They are less interested in landing a job because they simply do not want to work for anything. They see what others have and based on what mommy and daddy have told them, are entitled to it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I have often wondered is gullibility the sign of low intelligence or psychological issues. Who knows, but I did I did find this article interesting.
Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand?
Do Racism Conservatism and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand Psychology Today

Gullibility? Is it a sign of low intelligence?

Yes, it is.

A classic demonstration of how that works is found in Gruber's recent testimony regarding the stupidity of US electorate (FYI: he was referring to Democrats) and the need for Democrats to use deceit to avoid the law... in the construction of the bill. Which followed Pelosi's testimony "We'll have to pass the bill to see what's in the bill." Which was all preceded by "If you like your Doctor you can keep your Doctor", "If you like your plan you can keep your plan" and my personal fave: "CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEB IN!".

Gruber!!!!!!!!

Learn who he was talking about.

You've got tons of examples of gullible USMB nutters her on this forum.

Every Leftist is gullible... its part and parcel of being stupid.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

While there are exceptions... the average Democrat is dumber than a bag of Hammers.

If this were a real time discussion, I'd launch into asking ANY of the in-house comrades BASIC questions regarding civics, business, US and world history, science and you'd find that very few if ANY of the contributors who advocate through Left-think would be able to correctly answer any of them, while most Americans would have no trouble answering most... .

Go for it pea brain...you have a liberal right here ready to hammer you...

I'll be waiting....

LOL! You just couldn't help yourself could ya scout?

You've already failed... . Ya see, 'this' discussion isn't real time. Knowing how to run a search engine doesn't qualify as 'intelligence'.

Walking back the claim already, huh? Nice.

No....Bigfrn would simply use Google to find the answers.
If you cannot handle that, tough shit.

He wouldn't need google to answer civics questions. Why are you so mistrusting?

Oh Ok... Here's one for ya:

From where do Human Rights come and by what means are such sustained?

Knock yourselves out...

(Enjoy kids... )

 

[thereisnospoon]

I myself would never use that word.
People that can work for a living but take government assistance programs.
Why should they when the can get more in assistance than working in a low paying job?
Would most work at a job that pays 12,000.00 a year or get government assistance that pays 32,000.00 a year?

We found who the 47% Romney trashed really are...

America's safety net is below almost every other industrialized country in every measure. America more closely resembles the likes of Mexico than a modern First World industrialized nation.

We heard the ignorant rant of Mitt Romney and his 47%...

If there is a citizenry on this planet that does NOT have an entitlement mentality, it is the American people. American workers receive less benefits, paid leave, health care and take less vacation time than any other people. American workers take pride in the quality of their work and their work ethic.

What Romney said is a gross insult and reveals a dangerous mindset. He reeks of contempt for middle class working people and the poor.

Who are the 47%?

Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percent of the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

80 percent of the workforce has seen their wages decline in real terms over the last quarter-century, and the average household has seen 40 percent of its wealth disappear during the Great Recession. Through it all, families never asked for a handout from anyone, especially Washington. They were left to go on their own, working harder, squeezing nickels, and taking care of themselves. But their economic boats have been taking on water for years, and now the crisis has swamped millions of middle class families. ref ref

"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Maybe you should look at the latest polls to find out about the work ethic in the US.

"Nearly four in 10 Americans, or 92 million, are not in the labor force and now there’s a reason why: They have simply given up and don’t want to work.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the largest group of people not in the labor force are those who don’t want a job, a remarkable statement on the nation’s work ethic. The federal job counter said that 85.9 million adults last month didn’t want a job, or 93 percent of all adults not in the labor force.

APew Research Center analysisout Friday dug a bit deeper to find out who those people are. Many are younger Americans who seem far less interested it landing a job than previous generations, possibly discouraged by the lack of good-paying jobs.

“Women are more likely than men to say they don’t want a job, although the gap has been narrowing — especially since the Great Recession. Last month, 28.5 percent of men said they didn’t want a job, up from 23.9 percent in October 2000 and 25.2 percent in October 2008. For women, the share saying they didn’t want a job hovered around 38 percent throughout the 2000s but began creeping up in 2010, reaching 40.2 percent last month,” said the Pew analysis."

Giving up 40 women 28 men 39 youth don t want a job WashingtonExaminer.com

So? Some 86 million don't want to work. So what? As a percentage of the population, that's not much higher than before Obama became president. And given we're in the age of baby boomers hitting retirement age, where roughly three times as many seniors are retiring than before 2008, that's not exactly a surprise.

Why work when you can elect Democrats and get free stuff from the suckers that do?

Republicans have been in control of spending for 16 of the last 20 years. Seems if people are getting free stuff these days, it's thanks to Republicans.

Can you spew anymore horse shit?
If you are going to post in objection to the OP, at least come up with something that is intellectually valid.

 

[LoneLaugher]

.

So just to be sure I have this right...

Folks are still arguing over who's "smarter"?



.

Not exactly, genius. We are discussing who thinks everyone who opposes their POV is stupid and who just points to specific idiots.

 

[thereisnospoon]

pull your back in place with that spin, you're an imbecile you support a lie and fail policies of obama. that's the plain simple fact.

Spits a Bush voter.

What's so funny? shouldn't you be pissed because the creators of obamacare called you stupid for supporting what they created?
You are so fucking stupid you can't grasp the insult of what was said about you.

Who knows what you're rambling about now, Bush voter? I didn't vote for Obama because of healthcare. I voted for him due to the likelihood that the president elected in 2008 would be the one nominating a Supreme Court justice. And Obama exceeded my expectations by nominating not one, but two Liberal justices.

You are a dumb ass an imbecile if you don't know what I am talking about. No wait you're just a pathetic liar

Even worse than that is the lowly Bush voter. Know any?

Wow. You are so done here.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are a dumb ass an imbecile if you don't know what I am talking about. No wait you're just a pathetic liar

Even worse than that is the lowly Bush voter. Know any?

There is nothing worse than being called stupid by people who created something that you support.
NOTHING

Well obviously, as a Bush voter, you're too stupid to know there is. Of course, that is being a Bush voter.

Whatever only a total blooming idiot would support a lie, and liar of the year.
Gurber said you are stupid and I agree.

Did you mean "Gruber," Bush Voter? Gurber is the sound coming from your mouth when you speak while blowing your boyfriend.

Your stupidity is boring

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LOL! Can I call it or what?

While sound reasoning NEVER requires validation, it's always nice when such comes along...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are a dumb ass an imbecile if you don't know what I am talking about. No wait you're just a pathetic liar

Even worse than that is the lowly Bush voter. Know any?

There is nothing worse than being called stupid by people who created something that you support.
NOTHING

Well obviously, as a Bush voter, you're too stupid to know there is. Of course, that is being a Bush voter.

Whatever only a total blooming idiot would support a lie, and liar of the year.
Gurber said you are stupid and I agree.

No, he said the American voter is stupid, and they are.

You can't blame him if you jumped in front of his generalized insult.

Furthermore...he's right.

Dumb ass the only Americans voters that he was talking about are those who supported this shit. the other half of American voters did not and is not our fault.

 

[Bfgrn]

There you go...forget the FACTS, anecdotal evidence is all you need to reinforce your dogma...

A vast amount of people in this country has the attitude of give me, give me, give and I want it and I want it now.
An entitlement mentality is a state of mind in which an individual comes to believe that privileges are instead rights.
Lack of personal responsibility. Just as those with an entitlement mentality typically expect others to solve their problems, they also refuse to accept that the problems are of their own making.
Just like the women at McDonalds.
They arrived late after the breakfast served under the hours of......... and expected to still be able to order from the breakfast menu. It was their own fault for not getting there on time.

AGAIN...double down on your anecdotal evidence that supports your dogma...you CAN'T be wrong...

"Entitlement mentality" is a manufactured term used by the people who have brainwashed you...

The term "entitlement" originally referred to aristocrats. Aristocrats had titles, and they thought that they were thereby entitled to various things, particularly the deference of the common people. Everyone else, by contrast, was dependent on the aristocrats. This is conservatism. Yet in the 1990's, conservative rhetors decided that the people who actually claim entitlement are people on welfare. They furthermore created an empirically false association between welfare and dependency. But, as I have mentioned, welfare is precisely a way of eliminating dependency on the aristocracy and the cultural authorities that serve it. I do not recall anyone ever noting this inversion of meaning.

Oh Brother !
Talk about brainwashed

I see your indoctrination is complete. Even the icon of the right, F.A Hayek would dismiss today's social Darwinist conservatives.

"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."
I agree with this 100%.
The problem we have is our system of social safety nets has mushroomed into a multi trillion dollar hodgepodge of programs for every conceivable condition, syndrome, possibility etc. The fact that almost HALF the US population receives at least some form of public assistance should shame anyone who supports this system of making poverty comfortable into having to hide their face in public.
But no...You people insist it is never enough. Tax more. Tax at a higher rate you say.
None of which is going to m ake anyone less poor or raise them out of poverty.
What these taxpayer funded giveaways accomplish is twofold. One, it creates more opportunity to grow the size of government
Two, provides an endlessly growing source of votes for those who use their positions of power to make sure the goodies are always there.
Social giveaways ( entitlements) have always been about acquiring and retention of political power for democrats.

Social Security and Medicare have not added one dime to our debt. And right wing hacks like Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector has grossly inflated the costs of other programs by including things like sewer and water systems being built as social programs.

Of course, to the right wing mind who loathes the poor it just CAN'T be because liberals believe in helping people. It has to have an ulterior motive, because the right wing mind is devoid of empathy.

What Conservatives Really Want

The central issue in our political life is not being discussed. At stake is the moral basis of American democracy.

The individual issues are all too real: assaults on unions, public employees, women's rights, immigrants, the environment, health care, voting rights, food safety, pensions, prenatal care, science, public broadcasting, and on and on.

Budget deficits are a ruse, as we've seen in Wisconsin, where the governor turned a surplus into a deficit by providing corporate tax breaks, and then used the deficit as a ploy to break the unions, not just in Wisconsin, but seeking to be the first domino in a nationwide conservative movement.

Deficits can be addressed by raising revenue, plugging tax loopholes, putting people to work, and developing the economy long-term in all the ways the president has discussed. But deficits are not what really matters to conservatives.

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.

In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.

The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Walking back the claim already, huh? Nice.

Oh Ok... Here's one for ya:

From where do Human Rights come and by what means are such sustained?

Knock yourselves out...

(Enjoy kids... )

LOL! Too easy.

 

[Mac1958]

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family.

Agreed, I've always looked at conservatives as being animated by their paternal side, liberals animated by their maternal side.

"Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" vs. "here, let me help you".

What's best for a child, of course, is proper equilibrium between the two, carefully working together as mature, responsible adults.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family.

Agreed, I've always looked at conservatives as being animated by their paternal side, liberals animated by their maternal side.

"Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" vs. "here, let me help you".

What's best for a child, of course, is proper equilibrium between the two, carefully working together as mature, responsible adults.

.

You are so deep. I can hardly stand it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh shut up, go read ANY RDean thread, as one example, and you will see a liberal claiming conservatives are stupid.

And guess what? Both views are wrong. There are smart and dumb liberals and smart and dumb conservatives.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Wow! That's really groundbreaking theory you have there.

The OP was clear. The are differing degrees of this trait here.

Most of you guys like to bring up RDean all the time. Well....he's not stupid. He's just weird and has no filter. Whether or not he calls others stupid I couldn't tell you. I never read his shit any more.

Now....you have BigDerp in this thread calling every Obama supporter stupid. There are only a handful of USMB members who are less intelligent than BigDerp. Him calling most anyone besides Staph, Mud or Steve McRacist stupid is a huge pile of shit.

Tell him as much.

While there are exceptions... the average Democrat is dumber than a bag of Hammers.

If this were a real time discussion, I'd launch into asking ANY of the in-house comrades BASIC questions regarding civics, business, US and world history, science and you'd find that very few if ANY of the contributors who advocate through Left-think would be able to correctly answer any of them, while most Americans would have no trouble answering most... .

Go for it pea brain...you have a liberal right here ready to hammer you...

I'll be waiting....

Only if you promise not to look up the answers to the questions.

There's no point of a Leftist making promises... as there's no potential for credibility behind the assertion.

Translation, pea brain is AFRAID he will get hammered by a superior liberal mind...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Every day on this board we seem to have threads about 'how stupid are libs?', 'dimbocrats', 'typical liberal stupidity'....you know the drill.

The strange thing is, I don't see a lot of posts claiming the opposite. Some comments, sure, but I think most people will agree that there are far, far more posts labelling liberalism as being in some way stupid, a mental illness etc than there are posts about conservatism claiming the same superiority.

I don't get this at all - I see no link between political views and intelligence. I've met some brilliant socialists, a couple of brilliant fascists, and everything in between. I have met enough painfully stupid liberals and painfully stupid conservatives that I don't think either side are in too great a position to start claiming a monopoly on smarts.

Isn't claiming 'liberalism is a mental illness' the kind of Catch 22 comment that only an intellectual dwarf could assume?

Or is there a reason that some conservatives believe they are intellectually superior?

To the last question, yes there is.

Very often it's a lot of bravado due to an intellectual inferiority complex simply because many (but certainly not all) conservatives frequently eschew (look it up, cons) and mock formal education and expertise in favor of gut feelings (see the presidency of G. W. Bush) and common sense intuition (often wrong compared to a careful analysis of the evidence).

You see, if you frequently rely on a gut feelings, there's a tendency to overemphasize the times you were right while minimizing the times you were dead wrong. This is how people who believe in astrology in general tend to get fooled by the occasional correct general horoscope reading while simply dismissing all the times it was way off the mark.

Aside from what I just stated, the simple fact is that ALL people tend to give too much credence and value to their opinions under almost all circumstances. The key is whether or not people are open to changing their view (and willing to change their views, as well) when presented with enough evidence to call their assumptions into serious question. Educated people are more willing to do so. Less educated people are more likely to dismiss other information and careful analysis when it doesn't support their own opinions.

No...There are two distinct types of higher education.
One is the path of practicality and marketability. Those are degrees that have use in the real world. Degrees in engineering, business and science/math.
Holders of these degrees have the potential to go on to rewarding careers. They make up the bulk of new hires and those whose careers travel on an accelerated path.
Then there are those who earned degrees in such things as History, Greek philosophy, Afro American or Women's studies. Or those with degrees in the arts.
Now if I am a hiring manager and I am in need of an entry level junior analyst in the area of profit and loss, which one am I going to hire? The one with the major in business or the one with the history major? I give you three guesses. The first two don't count.
The issue is not earning of the degree. Conversely, it is the area of study.
Now, with regard to the level of education and a correlation to "open to changing their view", let me stop you right there. The two are mutually exclusive.
Yours is an elitist point of view. You have decided that those who are willing to change their mind, presumably to your point of view are inherently more intelligent than those who refuse to kowtow to your point of view. The fact is you as liberal are every bit as entrenched in your points of view as the conservatives you criticize for not "coming around".
You have simply claimed to be the enlightened ones.