Professor Says Liberals Are Smarter Than Conservatives

Sounds about right.

Cutting public employees does not reduce tax revenue.

Tell me if 100% of youR pay is made with money collected from others via taxes and I lay you off how did tax revenue decrease?

If a "society" consisted of 100 people making 1000 a month and each of them paid 100 a month in taxes the total monthly tax revenue would be 10,000.

Now if you were hired as the only public employee for that "society" and were paid 1000 a month the total tax revenue decreases to 9000 a month.

Now if you pay the same 100 a month in taxes as the other 100 members of the "society" then the total monthly tax revenue is 9100.

If we fire you the total tax revenue increases to its original 10,000 a month.

So tell me how does firing public employees decrease tax revenue?

Lol, I was drooling over that post, but you beat me to the punch!

Sometimes math escapes even those who pride themselves on being politically aligned with the academics.
 
I've had enough conversations with "conservatives" on this board where they simply choose to ignore recent history (ie. tax receipts from 2001-2003) that I believe, yes, generally speaking, liberals are more intelligent.

If anyone would like a demonstration, give me a "conservative" point on an issue and I can fully explain their position. They will be unable to explain the liberal position.

How does laying off public employees decrease tax revenue?
 
I've had enough conversations with "conservatives" on this board where they simply choose to ignore recent history (ie. tax receipts from 2001-2003) that I believe, yes, generally speaking, liberals are more intelligent.

If anyone would like a demonstration, give me a "conservative" point on an issue and I can fully explain their position. They will be unable to explain the liberal position.

In other words? YOU have been bested with LOGIC and common sense which YOU lack.

*BYE*
 
I've had enough conversations with "conservatives" on this board where they simply choose to ignore recent history (ie. tax receipts from 2001-2003) that I believe, yes, generally speaking, liberals are more intelligent.

If anyone would like a demonstration, give me a "conservative" point on an issue and I can fully explain their position. They will be unable to explain the liberal position.

The liberal answer to nearly everything is "mo money, mo gubmint". I believe that, yes, Generally speaking, liberals are more like parasites than conservatives.
 
I've had enough conversations with "conservatives" on this board where they simply choose to ignore recent history (ie. tax receipts from 2001-2003) that I believe, yes, generally speaking, liberals are more intelligent.

If anyone would like a demonstration, give me a "conservative" point on an issue and I can fully explain their position. They will be unable to explain the liberal position.

You speak well for liberal ruling class "in general." "I'm smarter, therefore you should give me all your money and i'll make the correct decisions for you."
 
Here's what's funny about these arguments.

Essentially the crux of these discussions is always that, since "smarter" people seem to be drawn toward one school of philosophical thought or another, then that philosophy must be the intelligent one.

The reason this is stupid is that all these political philosophies have, at their centers, moral initiative. Sure, we all argue back and forth over the pragmatic value of doing this or that to accomplish a given goal, but ultimately those goals we strive toward are functions of our morality. In today's polarized political environment, those goals tend to differ vastly between the various schools of thought.

Get this: I don't care what any academic says. I -know- for a -fact- that my unwillingness to be forced to pay for someone else's personal maintenance doesn't make me stupid. Callous, perhaps (though I don't believe so. It's the force that I despise, not the end goal), but since no morality in existence has a hard standard by which its righteousness can be proven, it is literally impossible to call your morality "smarter" than my morality with any sort of integrity.

Get this too: Fuck what your professor said. The fact that my taxes went to fund the building of the road by which my product is delivered to my customers, the same as everyone else's, coupled with the fact that all those other tax payers have exactly the same access to those roads as I do, leaves me owing -NOTHING- to society other than my share of the maintenance of such facilities. This is not a stupid concept. This is simply a reckoning free of any dogmatic, social contract worshipping, collectivist nonsense.

1. Get a grip on the fact that your ideals are based, at their deepest level, in your own personal morality.

2. Come to terms with the fact that no morality can be proven to be the correct morality.

3. Stop trying to claim that people adhering to your unverifiable list of priorities were lead to do so because they're simply smarter than those who consult a different list. Not only does it make you look arrogant as shit, but it makes you look stupid as shit. Horrible combination.
 
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.

Is English not your first language, that could explain where you went wrong?

First, roads and bridges aren't build by unicorns or the Keebler elves, construction companies build those!

Indeed! And they build them with....wait for it now...


Public money!



"You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did."

Third, this is the EXACT quote where "that" refers to the business, "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." It cannot refer to the roads and bridges because in the next sentence Obama credits government for building the Internet, totally knocking the props out from under your argument, Context Boy
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....

No one is denying government has a ROLE to play. I was going to say I don't know where you Leftists get such bizarre notions but it's apparent that its fed to you by the Collective.

I assume you think you're clever and made some point with the absurd "public money" comment and I'm assuming you mean tax dollars, since we don't typically barter services to build bridges and roads (not yet anyway, but if Obama gets a second term, we'll see) and again no one is denying that government and taxation plays a role in Free Market System.

What we're objecting to id Liz "Cheekbone" Warren and Barack "You didn't build that" Obama taking credit away from the Private sector and claiming all good flows from government as they both clearly stated
 
I've had enough conversations with "conservatives" on this board where they simply choose to ignore recent history (ie. tax receipts from 2001-2003) that I believe, yes, generally speaking, liberals are more intelligent.

If anyone would like a demonstration, give me a "conservative" point on an issue and I can fully explain their position. They will be unable to explain the liberal position.

Liberal position: Gimme your stuff!
 
Less than half of Obama's most loyal voter base graduates from high school.


Fail.

Where is your link?? Are we just supposed to believe a statement like that coming from one of the most nonobjective people on this site??
 
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.

He must have MISSED.....


:eusa_whistle:
 
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.”

Well he was wrong about you,how can people,that think they are intelligent,write such drivel.
 
Funny how the left who supposedly embrace science and logic don't like to do the math.
 
It has long been an accepted fact that academia is glaringly more biased towards liberal politicians and policies.

"long been an accepted fact" is code for "probably not true but feels right"

Academia isn't biased towards liberals, its the other way around. Conservatives who have the capacity for high level abstract thought want to do only one thing with it - make money. Liberals are more inclined to forgo higher profits for doing something they find personally more rewarding. So liberals are more likely to seek employment with universities.

If highly intelligent conservatives have a problem with there not being enough conservatives in universities, then are free to quit their lucrative jobs and the take the lower pay and higher job security of a university professor. Do you honestly think someone like Mitt Romney would have any trouble getting a gig as a college professor if that's what he really wanted to do?

But conservatives - for the most part - don't WANT to be professors - they just want to bitch about there not being enough conservative professors.
 
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.

:eusa_shhh:Thats because the Dem's are the corruption in Washington.
 
Cutting public employees does not reduce tax revenue.

Tell me if 100% of youR pay is made with money collected from others via taxes and I lay you off how did tax revenue decrease?

If a "society" consisted of 100 people making 1000 a month and each of them paid 100 a month in taxes the total monthly tax revenue would be 10,000.

Now if you were hired as the only public employee for that "society" and were paid 1000 a month the total tax revenue decreases to 9000 a month.

Now if you pay the same 100 a month in taxes as the other 100 members of the "society" then the total monthly tax revenue is 9100.

If we fire you the total tax revenue increases to its original 10,000 a month.

So tell me how does firing public employees decrease tax revenue?

Since PUBLIC Employees are PAID by taxes collected...:eusa_whistle:

Exactly. Those supposedly oh so smart liberals are trying to count dollars twice.

Remember .. that's how they "BALANCE" Obamacare..

“There is an issue here on the budget because your own actuary has said you can’t double-count,” said Shimkus.
“You can’t count — they’re attacking Medicare on the CR when their bill, your law,
cut $500 billion from Medicare.”

He continued: “Then you’re also using the same $500 billion to what? Say your funding health care. Your own actuary says you can’t do both. […] What’s the $500 billion in cuts for? Preserving Medicare or funding the health-care law?

Sebelius’ reply? “Both.”

HHS Secretary Sebelius admits to double-counting in Obamacare budget | The Daily Caller
 
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.

:eusa_shhh:Thats because the Dem's are the corruption in Washington.

We have corruption in both Parties.
I was referring to Democratic voters not voting for Representatives or working to get new Dem's in that would want to change the way Washington does it's business.
 
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.



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.

Sure...that is why food stamps are so popular.

We should give them to everyone and the economy should just take off.
 
I've had enough conversations with "conservatives" on this board where they simply choose to ignore recent history (ie. tax receipts from 2001-2003) that I believe, yes, generally speaking, liberals are more intelligent.

If anyone would like a demonstration, give me a "conservative" point on an issue and I can fully explain their position. They will be unable to explain the liberal position.

How does laying off public employees decrease tax revenue?

I never said it did. I would guess because when someone is unemployed they don't spend as much and therefore there is less revenue from sales tax.

How is this a "conservative" position?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top