Are conservatives smarter than liberals?

[Saigon]

Keys -

I concede that it is unlikely that we will ever see a coherent or on-topic statement from you. About anything.

I suspect many of your posts were written some years ago, stored for posterity, and are now being posted in random order, adorned with entirely random quotes from other posters.

Your concession is again... duly noted and summarily accepted.

Where? I don't see it.....

She conceded through deflecting from the standing point. That you don't see it, is irrelevant.

What the hell was your point?

He has no point.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Are conservatives smarter than liberals?"

No, they're not – not when there are conservatives who believe fascism manifests on the 'left' side of the political spectrum.

 

[Vigilante]

"Are conservatives smarter than liberals?"

No, they're not – not when there are conservatives who believe fascism manifests on the 'left' side of the political spectrum.

The Shyster proves the op's assertion ...So easy even a ambulance chaser can do it!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"Are conservatives smarter than liberals?"

No, they're not – not when there are conservatives who believe fascism manifests on the 'left' side of the political spectrum.

ROFLMNAO! 'National Socialism, it's GOT to be "Right" because it's not Socialism.'

This nugget brought to you by the purveyors of 'Sexual Abnormality is perfectly NORMAL! AND 'Production is incentivized through subsidizing of Non-Production'.

Can you imagine a cult so bereft of reason that they lament fascism, even as they practice fascism?

 

[Faun]

To the OP, Yes

conservatives think using logic, reason, and facts. liberals think using emotion, feelings, and fake empathy.

the defective liberal gene has been proven scientifically, someday maybe medical science will find a cure.

Gee, given your posts and the above faux definition, you must be a liberal.

is not the liberal agenda based on feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeling sorry for illegals, minorities, the poor, muslims, africans, chinese, and themselves? Is not the legal agenda based on a victim mentality?

Is it logical that this country is 17.5 trillion in debt? is deficit spending not a liberal concept?

and don't be confused there are liberals in both parties.

Actually, no. $17.5 trillion debt is a Conservative concept. Liberals subscribe to the tax and spend philosophy whereas Conservatives tend to be more of the borrow and spend type.

 

[Faun]

To the OP, Yes

conservatives think using logic, reason, and facts. liberals think using emotion, feelings, and fake empathy.

the defective liberal gene has been proven scientifically, someday maybe medical science will find a cure.

Well that's your opinion. But people who know minds tend to differ.
Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives
Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives Psychology Today

Researchers find a liberal gene - ScienceBlog.com

So? That certainly doesn't refute the article kikiman posted.

 

[PostmodernProph]

To the OP, Yes

conservatives think using logic, reason, and facts. liberals think using emotion, feelings, and fake empathy.

the defective liberal gene has been proven scientifically, someday maybe medical science will find a cure.

Gee, given your posts and the above faux definition, you must be a liberal.

is not the liberal agenda based on feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeling sorry for illegals, minorities, the poor, muslims, africans, chinese, and themselves? Is not the legal agenda based on a victim mentality?

Is it logical that this country is 17.5 trillion in debt? is deficit spending not a liberal concept?

and don't be confused there are liberals in both parties.

Actually, no. $17.5 trillion debt is a Conservative concept. Liberals subscribe to the tax and spend philosophy whereas Conservatives tend to be more of the borrow and spend type.

lol.....liberals believe in spend and tax and spend and spend and tax and spend.....

 

[Wry Catcher]

To the OP, Yes

conservatives think using logic, reason, and facts. liberals think using emotion, feelings, and fake empathy.

the defective liberal gene has been proven scientifically, someday maybe medical science will find a cure.

Gee, given your posts and the above faux definition, you must be a liberal.

is not the liberal agenda based on feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeling sorry for illegals, minorities, the poor, muslims, africans, chinese, and themselves? Is not the legal agenda based on a victim mentality?

Is it logical that this country is 17.5 trillion in debt? is deficit spending not a liberal concept?

and don't be confused there are liberals in both parties.

Actually, no. $17.5 trillion debt is a Conservative concept. Liberals subscribe to the tax and spend philosophy whereas Conservatives tend to be more of the borrow and spend type.

lol.....liberals believe in spend and tax and spend and spend and tax and spend.....

Gee, do you think by posting spend and tax, instead of the talking point tax and spend you are making a point? Better to tax and spend, and not spend without the needed revenue something some are too stupid to understand.

 

[Faun]

To the OP, Yes

conservatives think using logic, reason, and facts. liberals think using emotion, feelings, and fake empathy.

the defective liberal gene has been proven scientifically, someday maybe medical science will find a cure.

Gee, given your posts and the above faux definition, you must be a liberal.

is not the liberal agenda based on feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeling sorry for illegals, minorities, the poor, muslims, africans, chinese, and themselves? Is not the legal agenda based on a victim mentality?

Is it logical that this country is 17.5 trillion in debt? is deficit spending not a liberal concept?

and don't be confused there are liberals in both parties.

Actually, no. $17.5 trillion debt is a Conservative concept. Liberals subscribe to the tax and spend philosophy whereas Conservatives tend to be more of the borrow and spend type.

lol.....liberals believe in spend and tax and spend and spend and tax and spend.....

And yet, the years where we spent the most, occurred under a Republican House.

 

[Skylar]

Keys -

I concede that it is unlikely that we will ever see a coherent or on-topic statement from you. About anything.

I suspect many of your posts were written some years ago, stored for posterity, and are now being posted in random order, adorned with entirely random quotes from other posters.

Your concession is again... duly noted and summarily accepted.

Where? I don't see it.....

She conceded through deflecting from the standing point. That you don't see it, is irrelevant.

More hapless declarations of 'victory'? Laughing.....I addressed your core point head on: and rejected you as defining any of of the virtues you cited. You claim your arguments are based on 'objectivity', but you demonstrated a profound lack of objectivity with your clumsy misquotes. You claim that your arguments are based on 'truth', but you demonstrated spectacular inaccuracy in your paraphrases, either through incompetence or dishonesty. Neither of which are 'truth'.

And since your system of virtues is nested, with the each dependent on the last beginning with 'objectivity' and 'truth', your entire house of cards came tumbling down. As you've demonstrated a profound lack of objectivity or truth in your posts.

This is your logic. I've simply applied it consistently.

 

[Skylar]

Keus -

95 percent of what tou have posted on this thread is gibberish.

It is apparant that you did not understand the premise of the thread, and have thus decided to stay from the topic in facour of meaningless monologies and nonsense.

You have avoided the topic at all cost, and refuse to post anything of substance. Any claims tou have made have been inecplicable and irrelevent.

I suspect you are best ignored.

Keyes is capable of debate.....for a while. But as you shut down his fallacies, reject him as an authoritative arbiter, and demonstrate the profound lack of logic or reasoning in his argument........he retreats to spamming. Or personal insults. Or silly summary declarations of victory.

None of which are the hallmark of a particularly good argument.

 

[Listening]

Keus -

95 percent of what tou have posted on this thread is gibberish.

It is apparant that you did not understand the premise of the thread, and have thus decided to stay from the topic in facour of meaningless monologies and nonsense.

You have avoided the topic at all cost, and refuse to post anything of substance. Any claims tou have made have been inecplicable and irrelevent.

I suspect you are best ignored.

Keyes is capable of debate.....for a while. But as you shut down his fallacies, reject him as an authoritative arbiter, and demonstrate the profound lack of logic or reasoning in his argument........he retreats to spamming. Or personal insults. Or silly summary declarations of victory.

None of which are the hallmark of a particularly good argument.

This from the person who just launched a whole school of Red Herrings.

 

[Dot Com]

Seeing as how few rw'ers here use citations when debating (see BullKurtzUSMC for example) and they basically just repeat back what they hear on SeanRush, yes, they're incomparable low-info, education-hating, 'tards

 

[Listening]

Dottie runs from the Bullring...and posts his bullshit....then hides under someone's skirt.

 

[Redfish]

Dottie runs from the Bullring...and posts his bullshit....then hides under someone's skirt.

its what libs do, no surprises there.

 

[Skylar]

Keus -

95 percent of what tou have posted on this thread is gibberish.

It is apparant that you did not understand the premise of the thread, and have thus decided to stay from the topic in facour of meaningless monologies and nonsense.

You have avoided the topic at all cost, and refuse to post anything of substance. Any claims tou have made have been inecplicable and irrelevent.

I suspect you are best ignored.

Keyes is capable of debate.....for a while. But as you shut down his fallacies, reject him as an authoritative arbiter, and demonstrate the profound lack of logic or reasoning in his argument........he retreats to spamming. Or personal insults. Or silly summary declarations of victory.

None of which are the hallmark of a particularly good argument.

This from the person who just launched a whole school of Red Herrings.

Such as? By all means, please get specific.

 

[Skylar]

Seeing as how few rw'ers here use citations when debating (see BullKurtzUSMC for example) and they basically just repeat back what they hear on SeanRush, yes, they're incomparable low-info, education-hating, 'tards

Many conservatives don't actually know why they believe what they believe. They have a feeling, they express that feeling, and there's very little concern on whether or not that feeling has anything to do with reality.

If it feels true, that's enough. The term 'truthiness' as coined to describe this exact phenomenon.

There's also an strong anti-intellectual vibe among many conservatives. A distrust of science, a disdain of many forms of education, a dismissal of polls. Hell, during the 2012 presidential election, some conservatives actually called into question the loyalty of republicans that could speak a foreign language. I think this is drawn from a desire to insulate one's self from perspectives that would contradict what a given conservative believes.

Obviously this doesn't encompass all conservatives. And the 'echo chamber' is hardly a uniquely conservative phenomenon. But I argue its been swallowed and internalized more deeply by conservatives than by most other political persuasions.

'Dittoheads' being such an unintentionally accurate description of many of conservative mindsets.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Read a few pages of this thread...

If this thread was example then Liberals look a lot more tolerant of ideas than the conservatives on this board. Saying there is a conservative agenda that is reasonable and has basis in fairness... I believe American politics has deformed those in to team sports Red team v Blue Team....

Fascinating that you have set up your own personal parameters as the necessary standard for the argument, and then blithely expected others to accept them. Exactly when did we say that WE view "fairness" as the Holy Grail we're striving for? This ain't kindergarten, Chuckles, and only children and those who think like them blither on about utterly subjective words like that. Sensible and workable, yes. "Fair"? Right after I worry about whether or not the conservative agenda encompasses Unicorn Rights and appeals to the Care Bear voter demographic.

Red team has been caught lying more times than Blue team but that is like saying which NFL player is taking less drugs.

In what parallel dimension is this true? The one where "caught lying" is defined as "the media actually mentioned it, and Cowboy Ted could be persuaded to acknowledge that it happened"? Not impressed.

Personally I think there is a need for more electable parties so the crazies in all parties can be dumped out of them.

"Electable parties". I'm guessing that means "people so bland and vapid that even partisan media hacks can't demonize them sufficiently".

"Youtube is the be-all and end-all of truth!" You're definitely convincing me that leftists are intelligent, informed, and insightful. No, really.

This could increase third, fourth and fifth party... Thus expanding the representation into more groups so the members can find better choice in those groups... Think of it like market freedom... People can vote for their favourite without jeopardizing their vote, So you can vote Libertarian without wasting your vote for a more likely conservative candidate.
Also unlike the need for primaries Parties can run multiple candidates in multi-seat elections.

Blithering about parties is another way of saying, "I'm too shallow to look at real and difficult problems and consider solutions, so I kneejerk back to my hatred of the cliques in high school who ignored my lame ass." You couldn't undo the human tendency to group up then, and you can't now. And the insistence on denying human nature is one of the main reasons leftists aren't viewed as very bright.

These systems are used by a vast majority of countries with only a few countries left who don't use this type of system.
This would fundamentally change US politics for the good, more representative, less incumbents, more responsive government...

Please name for us some countries who have vast numbers of splinter parties and factions, leaders who are elected by small pluralities because of this, and are models and efficiency and freedom that we should emulate. Aaaaaand . . . GO!

 

[Cecilie1200]

To the OP, Yes

conservatives think using logic, reason, and facts. liberals think using emotion, feelings, and fake empathy.

the defective liberal gene has been proven scientifically, someday maybe medical science will find a cure.

As a general rule, that hasn't been my experience. I've found conservatives far more motivated by their emotions than actual fact. And more than willing to embrace patently silly positions if they *feel* true, regardless of what the evidence actually demonstrates.

That's not to say liberals are immune to such pitfalls, or all conservatives fall into them. But in my experience, many more conservatives do than liberals.

Okay, you've stated your viewpoint. Now substantiate it.

Because, see, a rational, factual person would base their opinion on fact, knowing that no one takes their word for anything, and many people actually consider the fact that they said it to be proof to the contrary. Only glandular thinkers say, "I think this is how it is, and you should believe it because I just said it."

 

[Cecilie1200]

smarter?

IMO Intellectual dishonesty is far greater on the Right than the Left.

And your opinion is meaningful enough to waste screen space on because why?

I enjoyed the absurdity, though, particularly in light of the fact that you didn't even realize you were doing it.