Professor Says Liberals Are Smarter 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.

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."

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!

Thanks for proving my point guys!
 
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.

Liberal position: Gimme your stuff!

Thanks for proving my point guys!

:clap2:
 
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.
There may be a kernel of truth in this drivel. And that is because, at their core, the OWS parasites are not worried about taking care of themselves. They think that is the proper role of government, and the obligation of those that go out in search of money.
 
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....

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!".
 
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 you have to LIE about the context when it's provided to you? What is wrong with your freaking people?

Lie about the context? That's hilarious. The right has created an entire cottage industry related to lying about the context of this quote (and others, of course. They lie with the same ease others breathe. It's just what they do.
 
No one is denying government has a ROLE to play
Oh really now? No one is denying that?

lol.

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.

I can't be held accountable for your inability to understand basic English. So, we agree that public funds go to build bridges, roads etc... We agree that those play an important role in fostering business. We agree that government has a role to play in funding these projects...

Remind me again, what is it about Obama's statement you disagree with? Other than the fact he's a Dem?

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
So you're objecting to a strawman that you created? OK then. Have fun with that straw.
 
First of all we've seen lame threads like this a thousand times. They are completely inaccurate and meaningless.

Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman were both brilliant and both conservative.

Now if the question were who is more devious, democrats win that one.
 
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.”

My dad always used to say, "Them that can, do. Them that can't, teach."
The old time labor union Democrat was right.
 
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.

A logical mind would be at a loss to explain a liberal position...
 
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.
There may be a kernel of truth in this drivel. And that is because, at their core, the OWS parasites are not worried about taking care of themselves. They think that is the proper role of government, and the obligation of those that go out in search of money.

I have no idea what "OWS parasites" has to do with any of this. Maybe you can explain.
 
No one is denying government has a ROLE to play
Oh really now? No one is denying that?

lol.

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.

I can't be held accountable for your inability to understand basic English. So, we agree that public funds go to build bridges, roads etc... We agree that those play an important role in fostering business. We agree that government has a role to play in funding these projects...

Remind me again, what is it about Obama's statement you disagree with? Other than the fact he's a Dem?

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
So you're objecting to a strawman that you created? OK then. Have fun with that straw.

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.

If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system.”

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 just because they collected the taxes that built the roads and bridges. It's backward, it's an idea from someone who never worked a day in the private sector and in fact is on record as calling the private sector "behind enemy lines" and gave us a 1984ish video show how the government takes care of Julia her whole life through.
 
"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.
There may be a kernel of truth in this drivel. And that is because, at their core, the OWS parasites are not worried about taking care of themselves. They think that is the proper role of government, and the obligation of those that go out in search of money.

I have no idea what "OWS parasites" has to do with any of this. Maybe you can explain.

Because there are two types of people on this board. Regular folks like me, and OWS parasites like you. It's just a descriptive term for you lefties.
 
There may be a kernel of truth in this drivel. And that is because, at their core, the OWS parasites are not worried about taking care of themselves. They think that is the proper role of government, and the obligation of those that go out in search of money.

I have no idea what "OWS parasites" has to do with any of this. Maybe you can explain.

Because there are two types of people on this board. Regular folks like me, and OWS parasites like you. It's just a descriptive term for you lefties.

There are more than two types of people, and you still haven't explained what OWS has to do with the topic.
 
I have no idea what "OWS parasites" has to do with any of this. Maybe you can explain.

Because there are two types of people on this board. Regular folks like me, and OWS parasites like you. It's just a descriptive term for you lefties.

There are more than two types of people, and you still haven't explained what OWS has to do with the topic.

OWS itself has nothing to do with this topic, and that is why I did to bring OWS into it. I did, however, use a one hundred per cent accurate term to describe you morons. I could have said lefties. I could have said democrats. I cold have said progressives. But none of them quite sums up you losers like "OWS parasites". It's a descriptive term. And it fits like a glove.
 
Because there are two types of people on this board. Regular folks like me, and OWS parasites like you. It's just a descriptive term for you lefties.

There are more than two types of people, and you still haven't explained what OWS has to do with the topic.

OWS itself has nothing to do with this topic, and that is why I did to bring OWS into it. I did, however, use a one hundred per cent accurate term to describe you morons. I could have said lefties. I could have said democrats. I cold have said progressives. But none of them quite sums up you losers like "OWS parasites". It's a descriptive term. And it fits like a glove.


whatever
 

Forum List

Back
Top