Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Low IQ and Liberal beliefs linked to bad research

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 29, 2012, 1:34 a.m. EST by debndan (1145)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5118

This above link shows in detail how the study about conservatives being lower in IQ and racist to boot, was emphatically and patently, false.

Oh, I tried to warn my liberal friends here that this was junk science, tried to reason with them, tried everything.

Time to see if dreaded facts work now.

Hopefully once my liberal friends here can recognize the truth, that they will see how they, to, are easily susceptible to preconceived ideas, and maybe your not as evolved as you think.

Then, after leaving the high horse, you can join the rest of us mere mortals, so we can actually work together, instead of getting in a tizzy over a fake study.

Believe you me, us conservatives have been victims of just such false studies before as well.

Chalk it up to lesson learned, and remember, we're laughing with you because we are all human.

69 Comments

69 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

hmmm

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19980) 2 years ago

With reference to GirlFriday's recent forum-post : "Study Links Low IQ and Conservative Ideology" (to which your forum-post above is a riposte, I presume), I don't really have any empirical scientific data but anecdotally, emotionally and intuitively ; I do believe that the 'angry and anxious, reactionary right-wing - mindset', is more the possible result of a closed, blocked or atrophied 'heart centre' and/or even possible psychopathy, than anything else.

By this I mean that I think that there is a deficit of mercy, kindness, empathy and compassion rather than a lack of 'intelligence', though you might say that 'Their Emotional Intelligence' is under-developed.

For insights into the above, perhaps please try to watch : http://watchdocumentary.com/watch/i-psychopath-video_b28f60185.html & alt. link + synopsis ; http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/i-psychopath/

However, with reference to "The Elites" ; 'The 1% of The 1%' ; The 0.01%, these Parasitic Psychopaths are beyond 'The Pale' and they and their unconscionable behaviour are outside my 'compassion zone' !!!

pax et lux ...

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Yes, you are correct, my post IS in responce to girlfridays post on the study that linked low IQ and conservative ideology

and you hit the nail on the head, but not in the way you might think, your statement:

I don't really have any empirical scientific data but anecdotally, emotionally and intuitively ; I do believe that the 'angry and anxious, reactionary right-wing - mindset', is more the possible result of a closed, blocked or atrophied 'heart centre' and/or even possible psychopathy, than anything else.

That's the problem, that's how racism against conservo-Americans like me is perpetuated, and hard to overcome, because these prejudices are held in place not by fact or empirical data, but by feelings.

And then only furthered through racist studies, that were designed with a predetermined outcome.

Conservo-Americans like myself are deeply caring individuals, we're the ones that fill the food banks and help the homeless.

If we didn't care then we'd be libertarians and be for tearing the whole system down, but we don't, we want to conserve the USA for the next generation.

don't be misled by the popular media propaganda machine, conservative pundits and politicians are anything but conservative, most tend to be libertarian or neoconservative

And these are the real enemy, which is why libro-Americans need to join with us conservo-Americans, not hate us

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Good points. I'm all for the joint efforts of liberals and conservatives. I consider myself a conservative democrat.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

that's exactly my underlying argument, and these reports just get in the way. here's another junk science report:

http://www.salon.com/2010/12/29/conservative_brains/

but then again, it let's me use this link as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl0N7JM3wZk

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Sure, I get your point, but why don't you say more about how you think liberals and conservatives can work together.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Oh I have multiple times, this was just a post to answer a particular report, for it cannot go unanswered. But, yes, there are multiple things we can do together, which I've outlined ad nausium, but here those items are

  1. continue to protest and raise the issues of corruption
  2. register to vote, and register others to vote
  3. vote out the incumbants in the primaries when they are especially corrupt, wether dem or GOP (corruption is corruption)
  4. Talk to people of other political persuasions right from where you are, discuss the corruption of the system and encourage items 1-3
  5. circulate petitions of recall in your state if politicians refuse to change
  6. circulate petitions to repeal unjust state laws whenever enacted
  7. circulate petitions for ballot initiatives that are highly populist in nature

and that's my short list

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Those all sound good, but there are certain central issues I think you haven't included.

Personally, I believe the economy will never get better until we pass Glass Steagall first. We will never be able to invest in growth until we put all of the illegitimate debt in the system through bankruptcy reorganization.

Then I think we need something like FDR's New Deal, but more high tech, like JFK's space program. I'm talking about high technology infrastructure development. This is where most libertarians anyway disagree with me, that is, having a national bank to invest in infrastructure development.

What do you think?

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Yes, I'd say we need to put glas steagal back in place, and also to repeal the commodoties modernization act. My list was a short list of what we can do now, to force the politicians to be more responsive to the needs of we the people, not we the powerful.

The politicians won't do this till they realize that their job is on the line. Also we need to pass the stock act, and I wouldn't be opposed to a works program, but of more importance would be to repair our manufacturing base, which also won't happen until the corrupt are removed from high office.

Which is why ballot initiatives are important. We learned this in Ohio, which is how we repealed our govenors anti labor laws last fall. This can and must be repeated, I'm positive that if you circulated petitions to make it a state law that benifiting from laws that legislators pass is insider trading, punishable with 10 hard labor, many conservatives would sign it, annd if such an initiative made it ona ballot, it'd pass by wide margins.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Sounds like you have a lot of good ideas, and some practical experience as well. Have you been a political activist for long?

If you want to know more about conservative democrats, check out Lyndon Larouche, that is, of course, unless you already hate him:

http://www.larouchepac.com/

Many people here hate him, considering him to be a far right winger, but its not true. He's a conservative democrat. But watch, someone will probably make a nasty remark here.

That's interesting that as a conservative you worked to repeal anti labor laws, and that you are for rebuilding the manufacturing base. Are there many conservatives like that?

Being in Ohio, what do you think of Dennis Kucinich? I was born in Cleveland, but grew up in California.

As far as removing the corrupt from office is concerned, I think that impeaching Obama should be the first priority, as this would certainly send a message to others.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Sorry I took so long to respond, was doing quite a bit of research on larouche and some other things as well. I try to gather as much info and then come up with a logical, cogent response.

To that effect, let me start with, no, I don't hate larouche. But, that said, there are many things that do bother me about him. And yes I visited his site first.

Also I went to the wikipedia page and found a bunch of source material from lyndon's own words, and delving into his political evolution over past 34 years.

Starting with his first book in 1967:

http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/3rdstage.pdf

He begins as a self described socialist, railing against imperialism

he then moves on to marxism in 1975, and claims current marxists have it all wrong

http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/dialecticalecon.pdf

He later warns against bolshevism in 1980, then transfers to a conservative democrat in 1984. Now this is quite an evolution over 17 years, but then he becomes consistent for the next 17 years as a conservative democrat.

The problem is that during this political evolution, there isn't a conspiracy theory that he doesn't overlook. From the masons,illuminati, rothchilds, rockafellers, kissenger, communists and nazi's he literally runs the conspiracy gamut.

When his conspiracies touch on the priories of zion, the anti-defemation league rightfully says whoa there son, and thus the ADL is added to those out to get him(along with the British empire- go figure)

But then he runs afoul of the law, some say rail roaded, I'm not judging. And he serves time and settles on just a couple theories. From there he actually sounds pretty sane, and as long as his message that is consistantly a call to rebuild the manufacture of our country, I can agree, no problem.

And when he rightly sees bankers broke the law for past 12 years, and the need to re-install the glass-steagal act, again, no problem.

Heck, who knows, maybe it just took him all this time to grow up, for when I read his works from 1967 &1975 I can tell you 2 things.

1st is that he was very well educated, but yet

2nd he was coo coo for cocoa puffs and

3rd Dennis K. still is

But that's ok, and sometimes a little paranoia is healthy, it's just that those two have had it in ample quantities. So while I could support some of his goals, some others I would not.

And I could never support an impeachment of Obama by the congress, as this would be an overturn of the will of the people back in 2008

But if there were such a thing as a national ballot recall, sure, maybe I'd support one, for it would only pass by, again, the will of the people.

That not withstanding, yes anyone whom would work to end the corruption of the system, I could embrace and work with to end said corruption.

And to answer your first question : D I've been politically active more and more over the last 12 years. It's been a slow process, dependent with the level of hypocrisy in todays politics, I've always voted for last 20 odd years, just more radicalized over past 12.

And I still maintain, in the 90's, we had good government, but since? just when I think it can't get worse, it does, that was till last summer.

As far as helping to repeal anti-labor laws in Ohio, while being a conservative, Ohio is overwhelmingly conservative, but we repealed it by overwhelming numbers.

For it was about the rights of the individual, which is an old conservative Ideal, hailing back to teddy roosevelt, if not earlier. It's the pundits and GOP leadership that say to be a good conservative, you need to be anti-labor, and that, only recently.

Reagan, nixon, eisenhower all got union endorsements back in the day.

Hope this wasn't to long. Peace.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I'm glad to see you read up on Larouche. I wouldn't consider Wikipedia the greatest source though.

Why do you think Kucinich is crazy? What is the remark about the UFO?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Don't you ever get the feeling that when the Republicans can't obstruct the progressive change of the other liberals in the party, the Blue Dogs,conservative democrats, step up and finishes the liberals off. I think those blue dogs need to get back on their side of the isle. Just a thought... or there needs to be some liberal Republicans.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I'm sorry I don't understand exactly.

Conservative democrats are people who want to help the 99% but still believe in the traditional ideology of America. We like the founding fathers, and Abraham Lincoln, but also FDR and JFK.

We're not into Marx, or abandoning capitalism, we just want to make it work for everybody. We think hierarchical organizations and the accumulation of capital can also serve the 99%.

We think industrialism is one of the main cornerstones of our independence, and don't like giving our factories away, or having excessive environmental regulations.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I guess what i am saying is that the blue dogs, are fiscal Conservatives when Democrats have a majority and social conservatives when the Republicans are in the majority. I see the republicans as Social/fiscal Conservatives twenty four seven. But of course, my generality is not true in all cases. And the commie problem really sounds like a foreign affair. ooh, the commies are coming, the commies are coming... lol.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19980) 2 years ago

d : There is an underlying logic to your post, though I'm rather taken aback by your use of the phrase "racism against conservo-Americans" !! Also, you ascribe TO "libertarians" that which you would have proscribed FOR "conservo-Americans" ! Please do try to watch the video linked to above, for a deeper and 'non-politicised' insight. fiat lux ...

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Yeah, I've been watching it off and on, since you posted it.

It's a very good documentary, see, these psychopaths ARE nihilists, they are the modern day libertarians. And I don't ascribe these things lightly, for these terms have been purposely muddled. And this muddlement is only of modern origin.

Because that is where the great divide begins it hinges on wether or not a person cares for there fellow humans, if they do they belong to the conservative/liberal end of the political spectrum if they don't then they belong to the libertarian/ nihilist end of the political spectrum.

The libertarian/ nihilists were unpalatable 40 years ago, which is why they relabeled themselves as neoconservatives and neoliberals, then later as conservatives and liberals in political hierarchy.

And that documentary shows well why these folks have a propensity for criminal behavior.

As far as my usage of the phrase racism against conservo-americans, I used that because of another report out there that falsely purports that the brains of conservatives are different and underdeveloped than 'normal' brains.

For, if this were so, which it wasn't, then by extension being born conservative would mean I was born conservo-american, and not a choice : D and then these studies and reports that further said stereotypes about conservatives, would be racism, also by extension.

In other words some people want to have it both ways, but get upset when they can't and when somehow I rise above my mental handicaps and debunk them : D

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19980) 2 years ago

Thanx for your considered and thought provoking reply. I suspect that the poster 'arturo' above, will be particularly interested in your comments. I am myself a person of the political 'left', so the spectrum you allude to is all rather to the 'right' of me but I'm pleased that you watched the documentary. Stay well and aware. pax et lux.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

stupid people agree to stupid contracts and deserve to give their money to others

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

You mean this guy:William M. Briggs is "a statistical consultant whose research interests include prediction and forecast accuracy and usefulness; skill and cognitive biases in prediction; practical decision analysis; graphical data display; climate variability; and the philosophy of statistics and probability," according to the Heartland Institute. [1] Briggs's speech at Heartland's 2008 International Conference on Climate Change was titled, "Climate Change Impacts on Tropical Storms." [2] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=William_M._Briggs

Listed as an expert for this group: http://heartland.org/experts?page=1

The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit "think tank" that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation. A July 2011 Nature editorial points out the group's lack of credibility: "Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. ... The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters."[1]

Ties

Ties to Tobacco See Heartland Institute and tobacco for extensive documentation of the Institute's tobacco ties. Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) The Heartland Institute is a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as of 2010-2011.[11] It is a member of ALEC's Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force,[12] Education Task Force,[13] Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force Financial Services Subcommittee[14] and Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force.[15] James Taylor, managing editor of the Heartland publication Environment & Climate News, spoke at the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force meeting at the 2011 ALEC Annual Meeting.[15] Heartland was also an Exhibitor at ALEC's 2011 Annual Meeting.[16] Heartland has also functioned as a publisher and promoter of ALEC's model legislation.[17] ALEC is not a lobby; it is not a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve “model” bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board. (ALEC says that corporations do not vote on the board.) They fund almost all of ALEC's operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills. ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one in every five of them enacted into law. ALEC describes itself as a “unique,” “unparalleled” and “unmatched” organization. It might be right. It is as if a state legislature had been reconstituted, yet corporations had pushed the people out the door. Learn more at ALECexposed.org. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute


Hmmmm, indeed.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Yep, that's the very same guy, and your latent guilt-by-accociation aside, this doesn't refute the facts that the questions that were to purport racism, were in fact loosely conservative in nature, and had nothing to do with race at all. Then with a massaging of the numbers (i.e. throwing out the responses that didn't fit the mold) it simply doesn't hold up to real science at all. Hence the reason this report has been unduplicateable anywhere else in the world. And further, that this report has repeatedly touted as new, when in fact it was published in 2004. But the daily beast claimes it was earlier this month:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/01/26/report-prejudice-linked-to-low-iq.html

http://www.esds.ac.uk/doc/5579/mrdoc/pdf/ncds_and_bcs70_response.pdf

So, you see, this is again standard propaganda from the daily beast. But let's accept the guilt-by-accociation argument, for it's own sake. Now being that of these four researchers, two have worked in government, their whole lives, and the other two have published books tailor made since then to their studies findings, wouldn't it be in their financial best interest to find such results? And would not their political leanings also be of pertinence?

And even, for the sake of arguement, that the financial gain to be had from the results back in 2004, didn't sway them, and the fact they we're writing books and otherwise profiting from liberal ideology, let's ignore that for now and say that these people sought honest results.

Let's then also postulate that this other report, highly touted by liberals here and elsewhere, is true.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/why-republicans-deny-scie_b_1196823.html

Then if I'm born conservo-american, by the very nature of the premise of the first study, it is racist. Let me repeat that. If I'm biologically different than a liberal, then a report showing some conservo-americans as being lower in IQ, is at it's heart racist.

which is one reason for propaganda, to further racism, and this form of study has been done before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

And very educated people bought into these studies, for it fed into their preconceived ideas, and had nothing to do with fact. So, keep that in mind when you use the guilt by association argument in this case.

Now, hopefully, I've laid this all out in a self evident manner, and you can see the propaganda for what it is. But until then, I must ask, what does that make me? just a smart conservo? or OWS's token conservo?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

That's right guilt by association. Consultant for an organization aligned with ALEC........hmmmmmmm. YES.

Further, it is an analysis of three studies. So, it isn't propaganda in the Daily Beast because these are the authors: Hodson, G., & Busseri, M.A

The names that you have included come from one set of analysis. Both of the UK studies came from here: http://www.esds.ac.uk/longitudinal/about/introduction.asp The third came out in the US by Keiller in 2010.

So, yeah. You are just wrong all over the place.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Oh boy, ok let me break this down for you blow by blow.

Yesterday you provided a link to science today in fact this link:

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/767663/study_links_low_iq_and_conservative_ideology/

Now at that article science today purports a report from Hodson, but gives no title to such report as IQ link to conservatism

But they do provide another link to this which I followed:

http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html

again there was no report title, but they did reference the brittish study and quote from it. And Hodson is said to have published it in the journal of psychological review online on january 5

so I went to it here:

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/rev/119/1/

Notice it DOESN'T EXIST

but, not to be dismayed, I look for other journalistic sources like this:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/low-iq-socially-conservative-you-might-be-prejudiced-study-says/

And here, they also perport to quote the Hodson report as follows:

In the study, researchers used two forms of intelligence tests and a series of statements to measure social conservative attitudes — statements like “family life suffers if mum is working full-time“ and ”schools should teach children to obey authority,” LiveScience reported. From there, they captured attitudes about race using statements such as “I wouldn’t mind working with people from other races.” Researchers found a correlation between having a low intelligence in childhood and holding prejudicial attitudes in adulthood, and the relationship linking the two was social conservatism. In a second data set, researchers also found a link between poor abstract reasoning skills and homophobia.

Trouble is, this is a direct quote from the british 2004 study

So seeing the propaganda for what it was, I tried in vain to appeal to reason. But, alas, your prejudices are far to deep, so keep on defending a non existent report, and I'll keep on trashing the actual report.

And I'll just chalk it up to the reason propaganda is used, it works.

Or do you actually believe a report like that would magically come out at a time when conservatives and liberals, having much the same goals, need to be working together. Ask yourself.... what's the odds of that.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Ok. let me walk you through this. One time.

Open the link to live science. I will wait for you.

After reading that article, you should have come away with three pertinent pieces of information.

  1. The names of the two researchers. (Gordon Hodson and Busseri)

  2. There are three studies involved, 2 from the UK and one from the US.

  3. The two studies from the UK (longitudinal studies) with dates of 1958 and 1970.

Now, run a search on the name Gordon Hodson.

I'll wait.

The first site takes you to his page at Brock University. Click on it.

I'll wait.

Scroll down to Selected Publications. Now, one of these is not like the others. Do you see it?

Hodson, G., & Busseri, M.A. (in press). Bright minds and dark attitudes: Lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice through right-wing ideology and low intergroup contact. Psychological Science.

Notice Hodson and Busseri together?

Now, let's glance at the other Selected Publications. What is the same?

It does not look like Hodson whipped this up to serve for dinner during an election cycle. Does it?

Now, run a search on the words Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes.

I'll wait.

The very first site that is there takes you to the journal.

Now, I want you to look over at the right side where it says the following: Published online before print January 5, 2012, doi: 10.1177/0956797611421206 Psychological Science January 5, 2012 0956797611421206

Now, let's move on. Run a search with these key words: UK 1958 Study.

I'll wait.

The first site should say Access to1958 Birth Cohort Resource-University of Leicester. Click on it.

What do we have? Information on how to gain access to the data. If you look to your left side of the page then you will see 2 tabs one for ABOUT the 1958 and another for the 1970. Go ahead and click on one of those tabs so that you can get an idea of the sweeps.

Now, hit your back button twice. The second site will say: Centre for Longitudinal Studies. Click on that.

Can you access all of the data sets online? No, you cannot.

I will provide you with the links as a just-in-casey

http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html

http://www.brocku.ca/psychology/people/hodson.htm

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.abstract

http://www2.le.ac.uk/projects/birthcohort

http://www.cls.ioe.ac.uk/Default.aspx


Your cognitive abilities are fine. However, your research sucks. Now, one would think that after watching the morphing of what constitutes conservative in the past forty years they would automatically start looking at the issues.

Notice how you call yourself a paleoconservative? You, yourself, do not want to be identified with some of the problems and issues that have been presented. Hmmmm....what are the odds of that?

I'll chalk all of this up to reactionary. :D

[-] -1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Ahh, I see where some of the confusion came from

Other places in the media placed it's publication in psychological review

Now that I see the one from psychological science from your link, again that is a retelling of the one from 2004

and yes, those other 2 studies from 1958 and 1970 are the basis of both, those are the data sets and that is where the flaws lie,

So, once again it's the same OLD propaganda, a retelling of a previous lie So, once again, I was right to attack the 2004 study, because that's the one in question

This supposed new one is anything but new

Which goes back to junk science that's been done before the nazi's did it, then the soviets, then their useful idiots back in the late 50's and 70's

It's at this point I just give up on the willfully ignorant

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

The only willful ignorance here is yours.

[-] 3 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

CBS ran an interview last nite with two grass roots teabaggers out of Florida -

I would say they confirmed the studies . . .

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

LOL.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

They were just trying to be "fair and balanced", in their research.

To provide a counter weight to FLAKESnews reports.

Turnabout IS still fair play, after all.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

yeah, true, but the faux news group aren't even real conservatives, they are neoconservatives and libertarians.

See how they fawn over Mitten? It's not the color of his politics, but the contents of his wallet that matters.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

NO such things, they are all (R)epelican'ts.

They like Mitt 'cause he looks purty on TV, and they figure they might be able to sell him that way. Lord know there ain't an once of policy between the lot of 'em that's worth a sales pitch.

It's a PR thing.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

very true

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Their point is that the Republican Party of forty years ago wouldn't necessarily have been my party, but it was much more of a semi-friendly rival comprised of relatively normal, honest people than it is now. The Republican Party that's getting in line behind Mitt Romney is not the Republican Party that Deb and Dan remember; it's a lot dirtier and a lot more dangerous to the welfare of this nation. Basically, they're doing the right thing and dissociating themselves from the modern Republican Party.

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

So your saying the Republican Party is not honest? I disagree with Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama but I don' think they are dishonest. And i Know them.

[-] 3 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

They are dishonest inasfar as they have used their positions to enrich themselves. This is true of the whole leadership of both parties. Pelosi personally benefited from insider information based upon what legislation was allowed to come to the floor when she was speaker. Her personal investments were directed and redirected in ways that benefited from those things she did as speaker.

Boner doesn't get off so easy either, he too has done this very same thing. One time in our democracy this was corruption and scandalous, today it's business as usual.

That's why all incumbents must go from the congress.

And why anti corruption laws must be advanced by ballot initiative, these crooks won't do it on their own, so it's time for we the people to act, spread petitions, recall corrupt politicians etc.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

I a pretty familiar with both the Pelosi and Feinstein investments and yes there is an appearance of conflicts but I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that it was a direct correlation. I disagree with their politics but I don't think they are dishonest. They truly want to do what's right for America and what they believe in. Now egotistically...

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

They may have started that way many years ago, and perhaps boener as well

But as the old adage says, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Which is why we need to run most all of them out of office, and if the next batch becomes corrupt, they too must go.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

I don't disagree at all with you that power corrupts hence my belief in smaller government and local decision. Sending money and power to DC just doesn't seem smart to me. However, I will not believe that they are "dishonest" people who went there to steal. They have or had the best of intentions but believe that they are smarter than the rest of us. They don't believe in the invisible hand.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

That's my point too.

There's few if, any real Republicans left.

They've changed since Nixon, and that's become true, even on the local level.

My personal belief, is that they have been co-opted by libertarians, and they, are fully supported by corporations.

There is some level of co-option in the Dems too, yet it's not so pronounced.

I feel this is why certain policy decisions tick us all off, yet we argue over who is to blame.

[-] -3 points by Obummer (-16) 2 years ago

Police arrest about 300 Occupy Oakland protesters//////////////////////The poor regular inmates that got to put up with the stench from the OWS crew

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Fair enough; I didn't really take that thing seriously to begin with. I mean, if there were an actual correlation between IQ and political ideology I'm pretty sure it would have been shouted from the rooftops by everyone a long time ago and such a strong stigma would be attached to conservative political ideology that the past thirty years of rightward drift in both the US and the UK would not have happened. My other argument is that the gap between conservative and liberal policies is small enough compared to the gap between the combined bloc of conservatives and liberals and the current batch of neocons and libertarians that it's not worth pointing out right now; once we push the neocons off the national stage then you and I can choose to work out our differences or agree to disagree at our leisure.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Amen, and that's been my point for months now, that we are more alike than different, and it is those whom seek either to enrich themselves and their friends at the expense of the nation, or tear down the whole system that are the true enemy of both liberals and conservatives, for they risk and attack civil society

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Incidentally, there's something I'd like to run by you. It's an essay I wrote earlier on another site about where I want to see this country in ten or twenty years and some of the things I'd like to see us do to get there. I'd like you to check it out (along with the ensuing debate) and tell me what you think, if you don't mind.

http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=585

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

I read it, and yes, I can agree to most of it, though I'd say going back to pre-reagan taxes would be a huge increase on everyone, but definitely prebush would work. Along with some stiff tariffs on products from countries that use slave or child labor, have no environmental controls, or whom violate civil/political rights of it's citizens.

And along with putting glass-steagal back in place, I'd say that the commodities modernization act needs repealed as well

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

I figured that pre-Reagan woudn't happen all at once, but we'd wind up starting at pre-Bush, looking at what pre-Bush could pay for once we slimmed down and made the modifications to existing policies that I suggested, and then slowly raising them piece by piece in specific areas until we hit some sort of balance that will allow us to fund social programs as necessary, avoid placing undue burdens on your middle and professional classes, and balance the budget on a regular basis. The resulting tax code doesn't have to be pre-Reagan; the pre-Reagan code is just an example of why we shouldn't be afraid of heading in that direction.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

You believe that the government can allocate assets better than the market can and the truth is they can't. This country is built on freedom and liberty and does not want a government controlling those decision and that's the real debate here. It is not liberty when a person cannot work and provide for their family.

Your comments on Glass Steagell are pedestrian. There is no proof what stops bubbles.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

Here is a link to Science daily it shows atheists and liberals have higher IQ's.

ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) — More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women).

The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years." "Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values are those that humans are not biologically designed to have and our ancestors probably did not possess. In contrast, those that our ancestors had for millions of years are "evolutionarily familiar." "General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

There's actually several studies that bear this out. Conservatives are dumbasses ... live with it :)

You could always make yourself seem smarter by becoming a liberal (maybe some of the smartness will rub off on you).

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

oh, boy. Several studies? provide links to them. because they are often cited, but they DON'T EXIST, oh sure, there was a 2004 british story put out by 4 liberal hacks, 2 of whom went on to make money off their goofy Ideas.

And it's shear ignorance that perpetuates these things.

For what makes us conservative or liberal is weather you care for your fellow man. if you do, you are either conservative or liberal. If you don't your either libertarian or a nihilist. That how it breaks down.

and wether your a liberal or conservative is wether you tend more toward dreaming, or results (yes I dumbed it down for ya) liberals daydream, conservatives want results. which is why people become conservative over time.

All these things are fluid and based upon choices of how we wish to see the world. It's based upon our collection of experiences. Yes, this is why many of lower incomes become conservative, and why spoiled brats stay liberal. Poorer people can't afford to keep their heads in the clouds.

This is why any report or study that tries to show a link between IQ and political beliefs will always fall apart, and why the leftists will tout them.

Which, since I'm a conservative, I still care for ya, just that I ask that you pull your head out of your ass and instead of parroting something you heard, look into it, to see if it's true or not.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

conservatives have also been victimized by lil' mz sara.

her popularity is a demonstration of the validity of the study, if not its authenticity . . .

  • the repelican party is DONE
[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

The study only validated that if you wanna lie big in public, manipulate statistics.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

well said

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

The study falls apart under honest scrutiny.

First, some questions that were mildly conservative in nature, were labeled as answers a racist would give, when the question had noting to do with race.

And then 2nd, the 'researchers' threw out 30% of the respondents AFTER they reviewed the results of their survey.

In other words, they hand picked the questions, made them purposely vague, then selected what fit the mold they were making, then only accepted the results they were happy with.

I could do the same thing and make any survey say anything I want it to say, and by starting with a hugh pool, and funneling it down to a small group I get to distill any cockamamie theory I want, filtered gently through a pair of rose colored glasses.

but, yes, the gop is doa if liberals can see that regular folks whom happen to be conservative, are just like them, not dumber, not smarted, we are equal.

and in that equality we can work toward cleaning out the corrupt system.

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 2 years ago

I can handle liberals. It's the militant angry ones that really piss me off. But, then again I'm sure hard core conservatives piss them off just as much. However, sometimes liberals in America need to understand that America tends to be a conservative country. Not completely, but our foundation rests on core conservative values.

[-] 0 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Yeah, I know what you mean. The liberals are generally good folks, whom happen to have their heads in the clouds.

This can be a good thing, when results oriented folks(conservative) pick up on their workable Ideas and help them out (civil rights, labor movement, abolition of slavery)

But many times they devolve into leftism once their happy thoughts(utopia) doesn't come about because they are unworkable and conservative types point it out.

Then they become angry, come up with goofball reports, view their opponents as somehow subhuman, then after much pain they inflict they finally wake up and see they based their lives on a lie.

Leftists are truth deficient which is why a vegetarian named Adolf went from dreaming up new buildings to cooking with gas.

And which is also why historians tend to be conservatives, they know better.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by flamingliberal (138) 2 years ago

fascist propoganda. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that our 3 legislative branches are now owned by the corporate monopolies. This is unconstitutional as they were meant to 1 not be bought and 2 be seperate at all times.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

no no, I'm far from a propagandist, I've been around here for a while, and tend to try to highlight how liberals and conservatives are very similar, and where we can work together.

And I tend to debunk propaganda wherever it exists, whether on the left or right. remember, there is lies, damn lies, then statistics.

If you followed that link you'd see the 'report' on how racists and those of lower education, and lower IQ's become conservatives was one big propaganda piece. And all that it accomplishes is to divide liberals and conservatives into warring factions.

This will not do, for as you say, our system is corrupt and beholden to the corporate interest, instead of the peoples interest. And this corruption was sponsored by the demopublican parties. So that it necessitates that we all work together, instead of seeing where we differ.

[-] 0 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

Grammar. That should be "believe you me, WE conservatives blah blah blah".

You conservatives can never spell, or write. You obviously flunked grade school, which is why you're so angry at teachers and hate anyone with an IQ that's above average.

Please go see a shrink and deal with these issues and quit wasting your time, and ours, by spouting nonsense in a forum where everybody just laughs at your low IQ.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Fine argue syntax and ignore substance of an argument, for when you stand on a foundation of jello that's all you've got.

Then feed in fabrications, and the forum-at-large does see, but only that your a ninny.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Thank you so much for posting this. I can only imagine that it will be well received by those who seek and speak truth, and not so much by everyone else.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Oh, your welcome, it's received mixed reviews.

It's been thought provoking for some with liberal leaning

But for leftists, it's only hardened their resolve, the facts be damned, they believe such results, because it feeds what they accept on blind faith.

I've tried to educate some here, by pointing to such philosaphers as Baruch Spinoza, so they can see liberalism's and conservatism's classical origins.

I think I woulda been better posting from the Greek Skeptics and critical thinking, as some here are definitely deficient in this area.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Critical thinking skills are rare in today's world. In leftists, it's pretty much extinct from all observable data.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

CALL TO ACTION!

Help UNDO NDAA by Petitioning your State Supreme Court for a Protective Writ of Habeus Corpus like this one:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/petition-to-supreme-court-of-alaska-to-block-ndaa-/

( or alternatively http://tinyurl.com/undo-ndaa )

You do not have to be a lawyer to file this petition, but attorneys are certainly welcome to step up!

NO MORE LEFT. NO MORE RIGHT. TIME TO UNITE. STAND AND FIGHT!

IronBoltBruce via VVV PR ( http://vvvpr.com | @vvvpr )

Img: http://veritasvirtualvengeance.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/undo_ndaa.jpg

Vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFaGz8blpPI

Tag: #ndaa, #patriotact, #fascism, #ows, #worldwarweb, #vvvpr

Key: ndaa, national defense authorization act, ndaa 2012, national defense authorization act of 2012, patriot act, usa patriot act, seditious conspiracy, bush, obama, fascism, corporate fascism, ows, occupy wall street, world war web, vvv pr

[+] -4 points by LaraLittletree (-850) from Scarsdale, NY 2 years ago

"The liberal minds reveals its character, including his madness, in what he values and devalues, in what he articulates with passion. Of special interest,......... are the many values about which the modern liberal mind is not passionate:........... his agenda does not insist that the individual is the ultimate economic, social and political unit; it does not idealize individual liberty and the structure of law and order essential to it; it does not defend the basic rights of property and contract; it does not aspire to ideals of authentic autonomy and mutuality; it does not preach self reliance"...http://www.libertymind.com/

[-] 3 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

That is simply not true Lara. Philosophically, the liberal mind is the same as the conservative mind, it's a human mind, and we are prone to the same frailties.

liberals and conservatives start at the same premise, we diverge with our viewpoint and reasoning. We both want what is good for our fellow man, we want to help and cooperate with our fellow man for the betterment of all.

Now that also means sometimes they can be racist against conservo-americans like me, which I point out from time to time.

Oh, sure, they are fine with me when I point out half-truths from the right, or point to the hypocrisy within the GOP. And I'm even appreciated when I correctly point to how libertarians masquerade as conservatives, and when I point to how neoconservatives and neoliberals are corrupt.

But when a conservo-American like me debunks a popular report that perpetuates a stereotype about people like me, or mention the word God,then it's all 'back-of-the-bus with ya'

[-] -2 points by LaraLittletree (-850) from Scarsdale, NY 2 years ago

The ends does not justify the means... The want a nanny state, big Gov't.& are.promoting class warfare. sick of.angry lib's who can't even articulate a coherent reason why they are so against the evil rich....yada, yada, blah, blah.

[-] 3 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

naw, those of OWS want equal treatment under the law, they want corporate personhood overturned, they want those that committed fraud on wall st held accountable, along with those that were bought by lobbyists. And they generally want to see america like it was 12-40 years ago, and that today, there is something terribly wrong with the system. That communities are falling apart, schools are crumbling, and America is in a general state of decay.

And the thing is, these things bother conservatives as well. Which is why we need to work together. Not think that the other guy is somehow stupid, for this is folly and arrogance.

[-] -2 points by LaraLittletree (-850) from Scarsdale, NY 2 years ago

ows is a big tool of the left....and will likely pretty much disband...following their goal of getting Obama reelected... I do not see them as an altruistic group.. They want chaos, and class warfare...And are also supported by big corrupt unions.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Naw, most here want obama out, along with all the rest of the corrupt politicians.

it's just we've been split into warring camps, that it's hard to empathise with the other guys, typical divide and conquer strategy. Working with OWS adds our voice to the mix, but when conservatives also perpetuate stereotypes, what happens is..... well nothing, nothing changes.

This just won't do.