Professor Says Liberals Are Smarter Than Conservatives

Government plays a role in civil society, I don't know where you Libs get the bizarre notion that we're calling for the elimination of government, but since you and TM and Deany all say that, it must must been a "thought" fed into the Collective.

Here, I'll repeat Milton Friedman's words, he said it best, “The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade.

That's hilarious on many levels. Tell me,Frank, did Henry Ford's company benefit from the creation of public roads upon which to drive his cars? Did Einstein benefit from public education? The point isn't that government creates great achievements, it's that government fosters their creation. That's why nations with strong governments enforcing strong legal protections see the greatest achievement.

Milt sure didn't talk about the development of nuclear power, landing a man on the moon, developing an international space station etc...I wonder why?
I object to Obama (and apparently yours too since you've surrendered your ability for independent thought) notion that success is Totally owed to the government

I object to you continuing to lie. Obama never said that. You know that, of course, but you have to lie in order to try to keep him out of office in 2013. It's OK, it's just how some of you Republicans roll these days.

You're so close to understanding the point! I think it's the last vestige of your individuality struggling to break out of the Progressive Collective!

What you've described is a "free Enterprise System" where government enforces the rules of civil society. That's exactly the point we're making, government plays a role but it does not do very well as the driver of the economy.

Also, do you happen to know anything at all about Einstein's educational background and experience in school? You should look it up, it's a classic example of the tragedy of a government run One Size Fits All educational system.

Henry Ford's car did indeed benefit from roads, but without Ford's innovation and entrepreneurship they would be only be horses on those roads. You see that, right? The roads didn't build the cars.

That's like putting the cart before the horse.
 
What you've described is a "free Enterprise System" where government enforces the rules of civil society. That's exactly the point we're making, government plays a role but it does not do very well as the driver of the economy.

No one claimed that government "does very well as the driver of the economy". Again, that's just you babbling and making shit up because you don't like the guy who holds office - nevermind that the guy who wants his job has said the same thing.

Henry Ford's car did indeed benefit from roads, but without Ford's innovation and entrepreneurship they would be only be horses on those roads. You see that, right? The roads didn't build the cars.
and without a system of publicly funded roads, his cars would still be driving 20 mph on post roads.

Did you actually listen to Obama's quote on your own or was it fed to you through the Context Filter? Were you aware he called the private sector "behind enemy lines" (did you get your context filter for that remark? I'd be absolutely FASCINATED by that explanation)

The roads didn't build the cars, you see that now, right? I know you don't want to admit it in front of Deany and TM and fRANCOwtf, Don't Be Stupid Like Me and the rest of your Progressive geniuses, but you can admit to yourself that the roads didn't build the cars
 
Oh, this will be fun. Lets get you on record.

Are you saying, that EVERY major achievement in civilization has NOT come from government bureaus, but rather from capitalism and largely free trade? EVERY major achievement.

Also, are you saying, that the ONLY way to improve the lives of ordinary people is through the free-enterprise system? The ONLY way.

Please answer. I want you on record for this.

This conversation is beyond you, I don't expect you to understand what I'm about to say.

The Roman built the aqueducts and the Colosseum and those are still standing today. Were they "bureaucrats" by today's standards? Nope.

Today Bureaucrats run NY City Public Housing and they only thing they created is poverty and slums.

Look at the People republic of Vietnam, which is now economically to the right of the "American Left. When Bureaucrats ran their economy they had to import 2 millions tons of rice annual to keep the population from starving. The Bureaucrats were handed their walking papers, free enterprise directs the economy and they are now the second largest exporter of rice on the planet

Did you follow that?

Despite the horrendous grammar, I did follow it.

And we can all see you failed to respond to either of my questions, while already back tracking on your position. Awesome.

Your nonexistent reading skills are no fault of mine.

Can you name some fabulous invention designed by a bureaucrat?
 
What you've described is a "free Enterprise System" where government enforces the rules of civil society. That's exactly the point we're making, government plays a role but it does not do very well as the driver of the economy.

No one claimed that government "does very well as the driver of the economy". Again, that's just you babbling and making shit up because you don't like the guy who holds office - nevermind that the guy who wants his job has said the same thing.

Henry Ford's car did indeed benefit from roads, but without Ford's innovation and entrepreneurship they would be only be horses on those roads. You see that, right? The roads didn't build the cars.
and without a system of publicly funded roads, his cars would still be driving 20 mph on post roads.

Did you actually listen to Obama's quote on your own

Yes.

and if I'd spliced it as poorly as you're doing I'd conclude that Romney believes corporations need water, three meals a day and life insurance.

The roads didn't build the cars, you see that now, right?
indeed, they did not. The roads preceded the cars, however.
 
This conversation is beyond you, I don't expect you to understand what I'm about to say.

The Roman built the aqueducts and the Colosseum and those are still standing today. Were they "bureaucrats" by today's standards? Nope.

Today Bureaucrats run NY City Public Housing and they only thing they created is poverty and slums.

Look at the People republic of Vietnam, which is now economically to the right of the "American Left. When Bureaucrats ran their economy they had to import 2 millions tons of rice annual to keep the population from starving. The Bureaucrats were handed their walking papers, free enterprise directs the economy and they are now the second largest exporter of rice on the planet

Did you follow that?

Despite the horrendous grammar, I did follow it.

And we can all see you failed to respond to either of my questions, while already back tracking on your position. Awesome.

Not surprising, you asked a very stupid question and I answered as best I could.

No, actually, I asked two straightforward questions. I asked if you agreed with Friedman on those two points and you so far as being a coward and not answering.
 
Cut for content. Read the full post at Cameron Harris


Colorado Watchdog recently analyzed the political contributions of employees at 27 publicly supported campuses. What they found was truly astonishing, but one professor’s explanation is even more surprising.

The group found that University of Colorado employees gave Barack Obama $38,335 while only giving $6,550 to the Romney campaign. Colorado State faculty gave $13,175 to Obama while not a cent was given to Mitt Romney.

It has long been an accepted fact that academia is glaringly more biased towards liberal politicians and policies. These campaign numbers reinforce that claim, but many wonder why.

One professor thinks he has the answer.

Drew Westen, professor of Psychology at Emory University, feels that this data “confirms his sense that academics are smarter than everyone else.” Now I don’t think that many of us would take any issue with this claim. Academics devote their entire lives to the quest for knowledge, and they are most likely far superior to the majority of the rest of us in intelligence.


The next claim that Dr. Westen makes is the one that is disturbing and quite ridiculous.

Dr. Westen goes on to say: “That suggests that people who think logically and have been selected for intellect are more convinced by Democrats than Republicans. Perhaps that’s not a surprise when you take into consideration that Republicans defy basic math by arguing that you can cut deficits by throwing public employees out of work, which cuts the number of taxpayers (and hence reduces tax revenue), or that you can increase revenue by cutting taxes to the rich. Democrats tend to believe in science, e.g., they don’t believe in angels or Satan, but they do believe in evolution.”

How is that possible considering most conservatives were once progressivel???

The idiot may as well say we get dumber as we age... So in theory a 17-year-old punk is smarter than a 50-year-old self made individual...

Maybe we can call bullshit in wisdom while were at it..

If anything progressives are retarded (literal sense) adults... They've never matured - they've never grown up.. Which is ironic considering they call themselves progressives - hence progress..
 
Despite the horrendous grammar, I did follow it.

And we can all see you failed to respond to either of my questions, while already back tracking on your position. Awesome.

Not surprising, you asked a very stupid question and I answered as best I could.

No, actually, I asked two straightforward questions. I asked if you agreed with Friedman on those two points and you so far as being a coward and not answering.

Clearly, you didn't read and/or understand what Milton wrote.
 
Not surprising, you asked a very stupid question and I answered as best I could.

No, actually, I asked two straightforward questions. I asked if you agreed with Friedman on those two points and you so far as being a coward and not answering.

Clearly, you didn't read and/or understand what Milton wrote.

I understand it. And I'm man enough to say he's wrong.

I don't think you understand it, which is why you're not manning up to say he's right.
 
No, actually, I asked two straightforward questions. I asked if you agreed with Friedman on those two points and you so far as being a coward and not answering.

Clearly, you didn't read and/or understand what Milton wrote.

I understand it. And I'm man enough to say he's wrong.

I don't think you understand it, which is why you're not manning up to say he's right.

I'm saying he's right.
 
And common sense ain't so common is it?

We are talking about public employees.

When public employees lose their jobs tax revenue does not decrease it increases.



Do I have to do the math for you again or are you capable of clicking this link?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/237533-professor-says-liberals-are-smarter-than-conservatives-4.html#post5722054

Your post makes no fucking sense whatsoever.



My job is funded by the state government. If I lose it - that decreases federal tax revenues. It deceases sales tax revenues into my local government. That's a fact. Sorry you don't like it.

Then if you lose you job state tax revenue goes up.

No it doesn't - state SPENDING goes down. There's a difference you imbecile. Even by your own absurd argument in your linked post, tax revenue neither goes up nor down if I lose my job.

So it's better for people who live in your state.

If the people of my state don't want to have a decent state run University they're completely free to de-fund the scientific research it does - ultimately I serve at their pleasure. So far - they still want me at this job.

But I guess YOU think know better what the People of Louisiana need than the People of Louisiana do, which makes you decidedly ANTI-local government.

Your state will have more money therefore it will need less federal aid so therefore the federal government spends less tax money and net tax revenue increases

It won't "need" less federal aid - but it will sure GET less federal aid, as many federal grants for scientific research are contingent upon some level of matching financial commitment from the state.

It works the same for states or federal taxes.

And your federal taxes are being paid by other people not by you since 100% of your money comes from state taxes. In the aggregate tax revenues increase as public sector employees are fired.
The signature on my 1040 is mine you shit wad.
 
Indeed! And they build them with....wait for it now...


Public money!




Ms. Warren was correct as well. Obama made it clear that society and government plays a role in fostering successful business - just like Mr. Romney and anyone with a brain has said many times in the past.

But that assumes people have brains....

THESE bridges,Roads, POLICE, ALL PAID NOT with government making a product selling the product! NO!
THEY paid for it with TAX MONEY from the people and businesses!
TAX MONEY is NOT created! IT is calculated on most cases as a percentage and
then literally the person/business writes a check and PAYS a portion of THE TAX PAYER's
MONEY!!!

Do YOU have any IDEA how much money comes into the Federal Government AS TAXES?
Go to this web site if you are NOT too LAZY and if you really want the FACTS!!!

Federal Revenues by Source

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't use government money to fund police and fire, roads and bridges? Is that your point?

And I have no earthly idea what you mean when you say "Tax Money is NOT created!"/QUOTE]

I don't see any reason for the federal government to fund police and fire. We don't have a federal police or firefighter force. They are funded by city, county and state taxes.

Likewise, with the exception of the federal Interstate Highway system, roads and bridges are built and maintained by counties and states with local tax revenues.

Now, please create me some money and I will tell you where to send it.
 
Your post makes no fucking sense whatsoever.



My job is funded by the state government. If I lose it - that decreases federal tax revenues. It deceases sales tax revenues into my local government. That's a fact. Sorry you don't like it.

Then if you lose you job state tax revenue goes up.

No it doesn't - state SPENDING goes down. There's a difference you imbecile. Even by your own absurd argument in your linked post, tax revenue neither goes up nor down if I lose my job.



If the people of my state don't want to have a decent state run University they're completely free to de-fund the scientific research it does - ultimately I serve at their pleasure. So far - they still want me at this job.

But I guess YOU think know better what the People of Louisiana need than the People of Louisiana do, which makes you decidedly ANTI-local government.

You say you are indispensable to a university and you can't grasp the concept that if state spending goes down that net tax revenues go up?

I think said university would be better off with people who actually could do math.

Your state will have more money therefore it will need less federal aid so therefore the federal government spends less tax money and net tax revenue increases

It won't "need" less federal aid - but it will sure GET less federal aid, as many federal grants for scientific research are contingent upon some level of matching financial commitment from the state.

Of course it will need less if your salary and the salaries of other people who can't understand math were not being paid. The state could use the money it saves by firing your ass to offset any reduction in federal aid.

It works the same for states or federal taxes.

And your federal taxes are being paid by other people not by you since 100% of your money comes from state taxes. In the aggregate tax revenues increase as public sector employees are fired.
The signature on my 1040 is mine you shit wad.
[/quote]

Since taxpayers provide your salary your taxes are being paid with other peoples' money.

Especially true for state taxes since you don't add to the state's net tax revenue.

And the piddly bit you won't pay to the feds when your ass gets canned will easily be made up by the money saved by firing some federal hacks.
 
Last edited:
Cut for content. Read the full post at Cameron Harris


Colorado Watchdog recently analyzed the political contributions of employees at 27 publicly supported campuses. What they found was truly astonishing, but one professor’s explanation is even more surprising.

The group found that University of Colorado employees gave Barack Obama $38,335 while only giving $6,550 to the Romney campaign. Colorado State faculty gave $13,175 to Obama while not a cent was given to Mitt Romney.

It has long been an accepted fact that academia is glaringly more biased towards liberal politicians and policies. These campaign numbers reinforce that claim, but many wonder why.

One professor thinks he has the answer.

Drew Westen, professor of Psychology at Emory University, feels that this data “confirms his sense that academics are smarter than everyone else.” Now I don’t think that many of us would take any issue with this claim. Academics devote their entire lives to the quest for knowledge, and they are most likely far superior to the majority of the rest of us in intelligence.


The next claim that Dr. Westen makes is the one that is disturbing and quite ridiculous.

Dr. Westen goes on to say: “That suggests that people who think logically and have been selected for intellect are more convinced by Democrats than Republicans. Perhaps that’s not a surprise when you take into consideration that Republicans defy basic math by arguing that you can cut deficits by throwing public employees out of work, which cuts the number of taxpayers (and hence reduces tax revenue), or that you can increase revenue by cutting taxes to the rich. Democrats tend to believe in science, e.g., they don’t believe in angels or Satan, but they do believe in evolution.”

Apparently Westen thinks government employees pay taxes at a rate that exceeds 100%.
 
Sounds about right.


It wasn't long ago that the University of Colorado was BEGGING for Conservative professors--especially after the Ward Churchill incident. IOW--CU was losing stature among those wanting to attend CU--by those so-called RICH conservative parents that were telling their kids--"there is no way in hell you're going there."---:badgrin:

But as we see "memories are very short" in the world of academia.

The official White House visit on the Boulder campus on April 24 was one of three stops at colleges this past spring as Obama addressed higher-education affordability and urged Congress to prevent subsidized Stafford loan interest rates from doubling to 6.8 percent this summer.

"The visit of a sitting president is a historic opportunity for any campus," CU-Boulder Chancellor Phil DiStefano said in a statement. "CU-Boulder was honored to have been asked to host President Obama's visit. His visit drew international media coverage and showcased our campus community in a marvelous way to a global audience."

CU officials said that funding to cover the costs of Obama's visit will come from existing insurance rebates to the university. The costs will not result in any tuition or fee increases to students or reductions in campus budgets, CU officials said. (yeah right)--:eusa_boohoo:

Of the total price, about $40,000 was spent on parking and transportation, while another $22,000 was spent both on athletic facilities -- the speech took place at the Coors Events Center, the campus' basketball arena -- and by the CU Police Department.

Now these same INTELLECTUALS spent:
In contrast, in the days before Obama's visit, the CU administration and student government spent $279,000 on the university's 4/20 crackdown, which, despite a court challenge, shut down the campus to outside visitors during the annual April 20 marijuana smoke-out. The university also used insurance rebates to pay for those efforts.--(yeah right)
CU-Boulder price tag for Obama's visit last April: $110,000 - Colorado Daily

images
 
Last edited:
Clearly, you didn't read and/or understand what Milton wrote.

I understand it. And I'm man enough to say he's wrong.

I don't think you understand it, which is why you're not manning up to say he's right.

I'm saying he's right.

Well, I'll give you props for finally manning up. I mean, you're totally wrong, unless you think the moon landing wasn't a great achievement. Or ending WW2. Or the creation of the internet. Or the eradication of smallpox. Or the mapping of the human genome.

Or ending slavery. Which is interesting, since the people opposing that were the ones claiming it had to stay in place due to capitalism and free trade.

But, hey, keep on thinking Friedman was right and none of that stuff happened.
 
I understand it. And I'm man enough to say he's wrong.

I don't think you understand it, which is why you're not manning up to say he's right.

I'm saying he's right.

Well, I'll give you props for finally manning up. I mean, you're totally wrong, unless you think the moon landing wasn't a great achievement. Or ending WW2. Or the creation of the internet. Or the eradication of smallpox. Or the mapping of the human genome.

Or ending slavery. Which is interesting, since the people opposing that were the ones claiming it had to stay in place due to capitalism and free trade.

But, hey, keep on thinking Friedman was right and none of that stuff happened.

War or defense if you will is the MAIN function of govrt, who disputes that. Now teell your liberal dove friends that war DOES solve problems, just like you stated.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top