WHERE is RDERP? BIG NEWS.

[Harry Dresden]

I'm sorry. Why does the idiot with the screwy images on his page think that I did not read the OP?

I said that I read through Study 1. Have I made comments to the contrary?

And..Foxy...................please. You will know when I object to something. And you will rarely catch me speaking in absolutes............precisely because I am aware that the volume of things that i do not know is greater than that which I do.

When I say I know something..........you can bank on it.

3 thousand posts.....when are you going to start?.....hey just wonderin....

 

[Foxfyre]

I am still chuckling at the "study."

We argue that
low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism, not that
conservatives rely on low-effort thought.

, said the authors.

I wonder if that might mean that high effort thinking promotes liberalism?

I doubt it. My hypothesis would be that it's only high-effort for the libs because they aren't used to actually thinking.

I suggest that somebody engage in a "study" to validate that hypothesis.

I'm still waiting for a decent definition of "political conservatism". Everyone is interested in protecting the status quo when shit's running correctly for them.

Once we have fair and simple taxes, a budget that's balanced by law, transparency in all things politics, and our kids are off on a quest for the stars, I will adorn myself with a conservative attitude. Until then, call me Mr. Change It.

Sustaining the complicated bullshit we currently call a tax code is wrong and trickle down don't fucking work. (Insert your preferred Deity here) bless George W. Bush for finally proving that!

This is the definition of Modern American Conservatism (partially borrowed from Wiki) that I use:

Classical Liberalism or Modern American Conservatism: also known as traditional liberalism, laissez-faire liberalism, and market liberalism or, outside the United States and Britain, sometimes simply liberalism is a doctrine stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and fiscal constraints on government as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others.

The Modern American Conservative looks to a strong central government to be restricted to provide the common defense, promote (not provide) the general welfare, and to implement only sufficient regulation necessary to secure the rights of the people. The people are then free to establish whatever social contracts they wish and govern themselves in whatever sort of society they wish to have.

 

[AVG-JOE]

So, with that definition, how is it the Republicans ended up with the 'conservative' contingent?

The Republican Party was formed to prosecute a war to end the discussion and make it known that, going forward, the federal government HAS the right and the responsibility to limit state and individual rights, starting with an end to the right of individuals and corporations to own and maintain pet people.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, with that definition, how is it the Republicans ended up with the 'conservative' contingent?

The Republican Party was formed to prosecute a war to end the discussion and make it known that, going forward, the federal government HAS the right and the responsibility to limit state and individual rights, starting with an end to the right of individuals and corporations to own and maintain pet people.

Let's go with a little less biased history on that, okay?

In Ripon, Wisconsin, former members of the Whig Party meet to establish a new party to oppose the spread of slavery into the western territories. The Whig Party, which was formed in 1834 to oppose the "tyranny" of President Andrew Jackson, had shown itself incapable of coping with the national crisis over slavery.

With the successful introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill of 1854, an act that dissolved the terms of the Missouri Compromise and allowed slave or free status to be decided in the territories by popular sovereignty, the Whigs disintegrated. By February 1854, anti-slavery Whigs had begun meeting in the upper midwestern states to discuss the formation of a new party. One such meeting, in Wisconsin on March 20, 1854, is generally remembered as the founding meeting of the Republican Party.

The Republicans rapidly gained supporters in the North, and in 1856 their first presidential candidate, John C. Fremont, won 11 of the 16 Northern states. By 1860, the majority of the Southern slave states were publicly threatening secession if the Republicans won the presidency. In November 1860, Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected president over a divided Democratic Party, and six weeks later South Carolina formally seceded from the Union. Within six more weeks, five other Southern states had followed South Carolina's lead, and in April 1861 the Civil War began when Confederate shore batteries under General P.G.T. Beauregard opened fire on Fort Sumter in South Carolina's Charleston Bay.

The Civil War firmly identified the Republican Party as the party of the victorious North, and after the war the Republican-dominated Congress forced a "Radical Reconstruction" policy on the South, which saw the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution and the granting of equal rights to all Southern citizens. By 1876, the Republican Party had lost control of the South, but it continued to dominate the presidency until the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933.
Republican Party founded — History.com This Day in History — 3/20/1854

Of course the modern GOP resembles the original Republican Party, or for that matter the modern Democratic Party resembles the original Democratic Party, about as much as a Zebra resembles a skunk even though they have similar coloring. But the Republicans started out being about individual liberty and self determination and to this day, though they have lost their way here and there, continue to emulate that better than the Democrats do. So, that is why you have more conservatives identifying with the GOP than identify with the Democrats.

 

[whitehall]

Pretty ironic that low effort liberal (liability) thought comes up with cut and paste stuff instead of thoughtful opinion. All we ever see lately is Media Matters/ Huffington talking points or crazy hate speech from the "thoughtful" left and you almost gotta laugh that they think they are thinking.

 

[Toro]

At first I thought this was a typo

so in a thread that shows the right hate sceince you dog me for saying you hate sceince

But I read it again.

Stop hating sceince you assholes

TM, if your intent is to mock the intellectual capacity of your opponents by noting that they don't believe in an academic discipline, you'll have a much greater affect by knowing how to spell that academic discipline.

 

[whitehall]

You gotta laugh when dumb libs find a e-mail they like and actually think they are thinking when thy post it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

That would be "an" e-mail, wouldn't it?

 

[Liability]

Pretty ironic that low effort liberal (liability) thought comes up with cut and paste stuff instead of thoughtful opinion. All we ever see lately is Media Matters/ Huffington talking points or crazy hate speech from the "thoughtful" left and you almost gotta laugh that they think they are thinking.

I gather you didn't read the OP or perhaps you didn't grasp what the "study" claimed and what I said about that.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Don't you just love it when a nutter fails to recognize the lame attempts at sarcasm that other nutters submit? They are so quick to call each other terrible names! Like "liberal". Did Whitehall hurt your feewings, Liability?

 

[Liability]

Don't you just love it when a nutter fails to recognize the lame attempts at sarcasm that other nutters submit? They are so quick to call each other terrible names! Like "liberal". Did Whitehall hurt your feewings, Liability?

Nah. A simple clarification ought to suffice. After all, he made a mistake, but he's no liberal; so he can admit it.

Does reality hurt your feewings, LonelyLaughable? It sure looks like it does. Sucks to be you.

 

[Trajan]

I am still chuckling at the "study."

We argue that
low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism, not that
conservatives rely on low-effort thought.

, said the authors.

I wonder if that might mean that high effort thinking promotes liberalism?

I doubt it. My hypothesis would be that it's only high-effort for the libs because they aren't used to actually thinking.

I suggest that somebody engage in a "study" to validate that hypothesis.

its not high effort, its 'bubble' indoctrination..


http://www.nas.org/images/documents...ign=CAS+report+press+release&utm_medium=email

 

[Liability]

denying science and history also promotes conservative veiws.

TYPO ALERT!

TDM spelled "science" correctly.








It HAD to be a typo.

 

[Liability]

I am still chuckling at the "study."

We argue that
low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism, not that
conservatives rely on low-effort thought.

, said the authors.

I wonder if that might mean that high effort thinking promotes liberalism?

I doubt it. My hypothesis would be that it's only high-effort for the libs because they aren't used to actually thinking.

I suggest that somebody engage in a "study" to validate that hypothesis.

its not high effort, its 'bubble' indoctrination..


http://www.nas.org/images/documents...ign=CAS+report+press+release&utm_medium=email

From the report you cited, I think this brief excerpt is very telling:

5.4 The Decline of Respect for Academic Research
When the academy is what it should be – an unpoliticized arena, and a calm space where complex
and controversial issues can be analyzed in an unprejudiced way – it performs an enormously valuable
service to society at large. Matters that stir political passions can be analyzed with care and with
partisanship minimized. Take the example of the minimum wage: the two major parties differ sharply
as to its usefulness, but both claim that their preferred solution benefits the poor. The left thinks that
inequality is lessened by raising the minimum wage; the right that this hurts the poor by reducing the
supply of entry level jobs that are the first step on the ladder to better things. Though ideology largely
determines who takes what position, the issue itself turns on matters of fact that are capable of precise
empirical study. Society needs a place where that study can be done without prejudice, and universities
have been such a place. But a one-party campus can neither keep partisanship in check, nor maintain
public confidence in the objectivity of its work. As a result, academic research no longer has automatic
credibility in the wider world.

Id.