Professor Says Liberals Are Smarter Than Conservatives

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.”


Basic common sense and actual facts does not enter the Democratic mind, they do not think logically.
Liberals speculate on how laws should be, it looks good on paper but does not work in the real world.
Where taxes are reduced for the rich, the rich move there in large numbers and tax revenue increases by the number of the rich. Case in point, Singapore.
Dem's want to punish the rich so that they move their wealth to other countries or move to the places that have lower taxes.
 
that taxpayers pay for it? or that some businesses do?

That civil society and social contracts create an environment - both legal and physical - where business can thrive.



soooooo how were businesses doing it before than? oooo thats right, it takes a government, phew, those fur traders never had a business where u didnt have roads, or laws or infastructor. Thank god government came around.

You're right. If our economy was based on a few fur traders navigating streams (under the control of both British and French governments, mind you) we might still be able to go without any interference.
 
Nothing new, liberals have thumped their chests for years about being superior beings.
Don't believe them? Just ask one, they are legends in their own minds.
 
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.”


Basic common sense and actual facts does not enter the Democratic mind, they do not think logically.
Liberals speculate on how laws should be, it looks good on paper but does not work in the real world.
Where taxes are reduced for the rich, the rich move there in large numbers and tax revenue increases by the number of the rich. Case in point, Singapore.
Dem's want to punish the rich so that they move their wealth to other countries or move to the places that have lower taxes.

Basic common sense has nothing to do with conservative politics, and more to do with accepting that the world sucks and there is nothing we can do about it other than to find the best way to cash in.
 
It has been a mystery to conservatives why an intellectual approach to politics leads to the left because they cannot accept the obvious conclusion, conservative politics requires a willingness to accept too many fallacies and never question them. It is not precisely a question of intelligence but a measure of authoritarian following behavior.

We have newly elected Republicans that are trying to change the way Washington Does it's business.
I don't see Dem's doing anything at all in changing the corruption in Washington.
 
It has been a mystery to conservatives why an intellectual approach to politics leads to the left because they cannot accept the obvious conclusion, conservative politics requires a willingness to accept too many fallacies and never question them. It is not precisely a question of intelligence but a measure of authoritarian following behavior.

Yeah?

Can you explain this comment to me in your own words, "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Frank, liberals can't be held accountable if you're stupid enough to believe Rush and Hannity's splicing of that quote.

Anyone with an IQ above room temperature understands the context regarding infrastructure.

Yes, Rush and Hannity, great comeback!

Quoting Obama verbatim is "splicing".

I see they fit you for the Obama Context Filter and you don't seem to mind the loss of your individuality or ability to think.



"If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." (without the Obama Context Filter)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
that taxpayers pay for it? or that some businesses do?

That civil society and social contracts create an environment - both legal and physical - where business can thrive.



soooooo how were businesses doing it before than? oooo thats right, it takes a government, phew, those fur traders never had a business where u didnt have roads, or laws or infastructor. Thank god government came around.

How did we ever survive as a society before paying innercity meth whores to spit out bastard babies?
 
BTW, I literally haven't listened to Hannity in over a year and I listen to Rush only when I'm traveling by car so on average I listen to Limbaugh about 2 hours a month
 
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.”


Reminds me of a bit of wisdom passed down for generations in my family of doctors, lawyers, business owners, and accountants: those that can, do. Those that can't, teach.
 
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.”


Basic common sense and actual facts does not enter the Democratic mind, they do not think logically.
Liberals speculate on how laws should be, it looks good on paper but does not work in the real world.
Where taxes are reduced for the rich, the rich move there in large numbers and tax revenue increases by the number of the rich. Case in point, Singapore.
Dem's want to punish the rich so that they move their wealth to other countries or move to the places that have lower taxes.

Basic common sense has nothing to do with conservative politics, and more to do with accepting that the world sucks and there is nothing we can do about it other than to find the best way to cash in.


You keep telling yourself that. Never mind the 87 new elected Representatives who have upset the cart in Washington.
Dem's will not even accept that.
 
I see they fit you for the Obama Context Filter and you don't seem to mind the loss of your individuality or ability to think.
Using only a portion of the quote is splicing. You knew that, of course, but you've resigned yourself to lying and making shit up in order to prevent Obama from getting elected again.

I'd expect nothing better from ya, Frank. Just don't sound all offended when the DNC does the same thing.
 
I so wish I had a photographic memory.

Anyone else read the study a few months back that found that in high stress and dangerous situations the human brain automatically switches into conservative mode implying that conservatism is something of a human default in regard to self preservation?
 
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.
I don't have a problem with someone making that assertion.. But boy would I like to see the facts on that one.

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),
Oh... Never mind. This guy is a complete fucking idiot, or whoever said that is as if it supports logic. If you pay a government employee 30k a year with taxes, and he/she only pays a percentage of that back in taxes, then you run a deficit. There is no arguing that...

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.”
Actually... I could see how that is possible.

*shakes head*

This Dr. could convince the people who put no thought into things. Joy.
 
I see they fit you for the Obama Context Filter and you don't seem to mind the loss of your individuality or ability to think.
Using only a portion of the quote is splicing. You knew that, of course, but you've resigned yourself to lying and making shit up in order to prevent Obama from getting elected again.

I'd expect nothing better from ya, Frank. Just don't sound all offended when the DNC does the same thing.

The DNC and their LMSM media outlet distort 24/7 (aka Tea Party/Colorado Shooter) but that's not the issue here at all. Again, here what's Obama said, here's the key sentence.

"If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

here's the entire paragraph,

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

How does his saying the government built the Internet strengthen your case?
 
Basic common sense and actual facts does not enter the Democratic mind, they do not think logically.
Liberals speculate on how laws should be, it looks good on paper but does not work in the real world.
Where taxes are reduced for the rich, the rich move there in large numbers and tax revenue increases by the number of the rich. Case in point, Singapore.
Dem's want to punish the rich so that they move their wealth to other countries or move to the places that have lower taxes.

Basic common sense has nothing to do with conservative politics, and more to do with accepting that the world sucks and there is nothing we can do about it other than to find the best way to cash in.


You keep telling yourself that. Never mind the 87 new elected Representatives who have upset the cart in Washington.
Dem's will not even accept that.

Neither will the Elitist Blue Blood Republicans.
 
Whats funny is they have to bring up threads like this to try and prove it, they cant even say people can be smart or dumb, they have to make it a contest like children. Even trying to be adults, they are immature.

no kidding,
really boring
 
I see they fit you for the Obama Context Filter and you don't seem to mind the loss of your individuality or ability to think.
Using only a portion of the quote is splicing. You knew that, of course, but you've resigned yourself to lying and making shit up in order to prevent Obama from getting elected again.

I'd expect nothing better from ya, Frank. Just don't sound all offended when the DNC does the same thing.

The DNC and their LMSM media outlet distort 24/7 (aka Tea Party/Colorado Shooter) but that's not the issue here at all. Again, here what's Obama said, here's the key sentence.

"If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

here's the entire paragraph,

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

How does his saying the government built the Internet strengthen your case?


It's President Obama's opinion that the Government is the one that helps the people.
It's the other way around, the people, companies and a much larger part of entrepreneurs is what helps to develop the Government.

Government research did not create the Internet.
It was invented by the private sector, then was taken over by the defense department.
The Internet was an evolution of computer networking that began in the late 50's, hit a turning point in 1969 when ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network) connected UCLA to Stanford Research Institutes Augmentation Research Center, and became official in 1983 when all hosts hooked up to ARPANET were switched over to TCP/IP.

The Internet evolved from more than just schools and government institutions connecting their computers together through a standard protocol called TCP/IP. There was another emerging network in the 1980's that also played a part: the bulletin board system.

Bulletin Board Systems (BBSs) became popular -- at least among technology geeks -- in the mid-80s when modems were priced low enough for the average person to afford them. These early BBSs were run on 300 baud modems which were so slow you could literally see the text scroll from left to right like someone was typing. (In fact, it was slower than some people's typing.)

As modems became faster, Bulletin Board Systems became more prominent and commercial services like CompuServe and America Online began popping up. But most BBSs were run by individuals on their own computer and were free to use. In the late 80's, when modems became fast enough to support it, these BBSs began creating their own little network by calling each other and exchanging messages.

These public forums weren't much different than the forums here at USMB.com They allowed people all over the world to type in posts and exchange information. Of course, very few message boards actually spanned the world since calling another country to exchange messages was too expensive for most individuals.

In the early 90s, many of these BBSs began hooking up with the Internet to support email. As the Internet grew in popularity, these privately owned BBSs began to vanish, while commercial BBSs like America On line merged with the Internet. But, in many ways, the spirit of BBSs continue in the form of popular message boards across the Internet.

Without the entrepreneurs like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs who helped to develop the INTERNET even more, we would not have what we do now.
It is President Obama's ideology that is wrong.
The people and companies is what helps the government.
 
Last edited:
I see they fit you for the Obama Context Filter and you don't seem to mind the loss of your individuality or ability to think.
Using only a portion of the quote is splicing. You knew that, of course, but you've resigned yourself to lying and making shit up in order to prevent Obama from getting elected again.

I'd expect nothing better from ya, Frank. Just don't sound all offended when the DNC does the same thing.

The DNC and their LMSM media outlet distort 24/7 (aka Tea Party/Colorado Shooter) but that's not the issue here at all. Again, here what's Obama said, here's the key sentence.

"If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

here's the entire paragraph,

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

How does his saying the government built the Internet strengthen your case?

Oh, so you do get the context! He's saying that people don't build something without the help and support of others - be that a teacher, a guy building roads, or research developed outside his own head.

But you, being a rightwing hack, like to act like the comment about "you didn't build that" was in reference to the business, not the roads, bridges etc...Because that's the kind of crumbs the far right is left to fight for.
 
Using only a portion of the quote is splicing. You knew that, of course, but you've resigned yourself to lying and making shit up in order to prevent Obama from getting elected again.

I'd expect nothing better from ya, Frank. Just don't sound all offended when the DNC does the same thing.

The DNC and their LMSM media outlet distort 24/7 (aka Tea Party/Colorado Shooter) but that's not the issue here at all. Again, here what's Obama said, here's the key sentence.

"If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

here's the entire paragraph,

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

How does his saying the government built the Internet strengthen your case?

Oh, so you do get the context! He's saying that people don't build something without the help and support of others - be that a teacher, a guy building roads, or research developed outside his own head.

But you, being a rightwing hack, like to act like the comment about "you didn't build that" was in reference to the business, not the roads, bridges etc...Because that's the kind of crumbs the far right is left to fight for.


So, if he was referring to roads, bridges, teachers, courts, etc, then why did he say " you din't build that. Somebody else built that."? He specifically excluded business owners from having contributed to the building of that infrastructure. Why? Who does he think built those things? And why the fuck is he unable to use a proper demonstrative?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top