[Thanos]

Kai, you're a good kid but you sure gotta get rid of the tendency to totally ignore the entire gist of what others are saying. I'm on record as rejecting extremism from all sides so I'd appreciate it greatly if you'd quit trying to lump me in with the FUBARs at Code Pink, ANSWER, NION, Dennis Kucinich, or any of the other leftcore troglodytes who were gunning for Dubya.

And, once again, I'll reiterate that such similiar public behaviour, whether on the internet, at a TeaParty rally, on the hate-TV/radio shows, or on the floor of the Congress, on the part of alleged "conservatives" is innately anti-conservative. Leave the immature and hysterical publicity stunting to those whom it fits best, i.e. the leftist nutters. Show a philosophically-entrenched conservative alternative policy, display an adult public image, and stay far away from any of that 1960's radical populist garbage that belongs to the others.

[commanderkai]

Thanos Thanos:

Kai, you're a good kid but you sure gotta get rid of the tendency to totally ignore the entire gist of what others are saying. I'm on record as rejecting extremism from all sides so I'd appreciate it greatly if you'd quit trying to lump me in with the FUBARs at Code Pink, ANSWER, NION, Dennis Kucinich, or any of the other leftcore troglodytes who were gunning for Dubya.

The problem is, or at least my problem with your "rejection" of extremism is that you say just as many extremist statements. Now, it's one thing to be passionately against extremism, but it's another, in my opinion, to compare the "Tea Party" movement to the KKK racist-types, Timothy McVeigh anti-government types. Combating what you consider extremism by saying extremist statements is just as extreme.

$1:

And, once again, I'll reiterate that such similiar public behaviour, whether on the internet, at a TeaParty rally, on the hate-TV/radio shows, or on the floor of the Congress, on the part of alleged "conservatives" is innately anti-conservative.

And, on this point, I agree with you. The Republicans are using too much rhetoric, when they have the facts just as much on their sides. At the same time, I'll reiterate that this sort of rhetoric done by the right wing of the United States is blowback for the last eight years. Maybe it'll die off, or maybe it'll make the Republicans just as partisan as the Democrats. Either way, only time can tell.

$1:

Leave the immature and hysterical publicity stunting to those whom it fits best, i.e. the leftist nutters. Show a philosophically-entrenched conservative alternative policy, display an adult public image, and stay far away from any of that 1960's radical populist garbage that belongs to the others.

I agree with you totally. But the problem is that some of your statements, in my opinion, are wholly extreme. That's where we differ. I'm on the fence of either being a conservative or being a libertarian (legalizing heavy drugs is my biggest question on this, I know personally I'll never shoot myself with heroin, but I'd rather know the true cost of legalizing said heavy drugs), and I agree that the Republicans should save the rhetoric and argue facts. The problem is, you need both sides to argue facts to get anywhere.

Just using an example on something we both agree on. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Now, in my opinion, the facts rest wholly upon the Israeli side, and while I'll readily admit Israel isn't perfect, they aren't the worse side in the conflict. However, the various emotional rhetoric from the left is still quite common. The Palestinians, generally, have general public opinion on their side, and as such, if there was a referendum on the conflict right now, the Palestinians WILL win, due to the emotional rhetoric and not facts.

The Republicans, even if they are the conservative party, are still a political party. In the end, being right won't win you elections if you can't win votes. If a campaign of "Hope and Change" won in 2008, over McCain, who was "Four More Years of Bush" (Which is a joke). I agree with you, as well, that Palin was a mistake to appeal to a populist crowd, but appealing to populists will continue unless the general populace becomes educated in politics. Until then, every issue will be rhetoric. Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice over abortion, Anti-Freedom vs. Anti-Safety over national defense, the list goes on. This is what politics evolved to. It's disgraceful, but both sides are to blame, and finally, as much as this might suck, the Republicans are following down the same path the Democrats created decades ago.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Not much denying the level of ignorance of your average American Republican though. They are about down there with your typical Haitian Voodoo believer or a African animist.

Awesome. In other words, people who disagree with me politically are stupid.

Ignorance isn't stupidity. Stupid people can't help it. Ignorance is deliberate.

[DerbyX]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Not much denying the level of ignorance of your average American Republican though. They are about down there with your typical Haitian Voodoo believer or a African animist.

Awesome. In other words, people who disagree with me politically are stupid.

Ignorance isn't stupidity. Stupid people can't help it. Ignorance is deliberate.

Preaching to the choir Pink Floyd, preaching to the choir.

[Zipperfish]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Preaching to the choir Pink Floyd, preaching to the choir.

This is interesting: liberals are smarter, on average than Conservatives.

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

$1:

Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

go figger.

[DerbyX]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Preaching to the choir Pink Floyd, preaching to the choir.

This is interesting: liberals are smarter, on average than Conservatives.

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

$1:

Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

go figger.

Quel Surprise?

Reflected in the schools we attend and the people who rep us!!

That is why you are the king of rep points!

[Zipperfish]

Commanderkai is correct--there were protests against the Bush administration. On February 15, 2003, millions upon millions of people protested against the invasion of Iraq in hundreds of cities all over the world. It was one of the largest protests ever.

What's different here is that those protests, unlike the Tea Parties, weren't orchestrated by the most popular news network in the US. That's a disturbing feature. Also the fact that the Tea Party protests are so white should send up some alarm bells.

I think the level of menace of the Tea Party protests has been overrated though.

[DerbyX]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Commanderkai is correct--there were protests against the Bush administration. On February 15, 2003, millions upon millions of people protested against the invasion of Iraq in hundreds of cities all over the world. It was one of the largest protests ever.

What's different here is that those protests weren't orchestrated by the most popular news network in the US. That's a disturbing feature. Also the fact that they are so white should send up some alarm bells.

I think there level of menace has been overrated though.

Are you sure? I based my entire life around Obama being the anti-christ. I've broken out all my old AC/DC and Ozzy Osbourne albums and listen to them night and day.

[Public_Domain]

[PluggyRug]

Some believe there is no Christ, therefore how can there be an Antichrist?

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Ignorance isn't stupidity. Stupid people can't help it. Ignorance is deliberate.

And interestingly enough, you made a post showing how conservatives are stupid two posts after this one.

Yes, you like your own ego stroked by fellow liberals on how smarter you feel. That's great.

$1:

What's different here is that those protests, unlike the Tea Parties, weren't orchestrated by the most popular news network in the US. That's a disturbing feature. Also the fact that the Tea Party protests are so white should send up some alarm bells.

I'd consider "orchestrated" a exaggeration, maybe encouraged. However, being surprised that protest movement that consists of mostly suburban/rural, middle class conservatives consists of mostly whites is race baiting, nothing more, unless you truly don't understand how demographics breaks down in the United States

[Zipperfish]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Are you sure? I based my entire life around Obama being the anti-christ. I've broken out all my old AC/DC and Ozzy Osbourne albums and listen to them night and day.

Just finished "I am Ozzy." Great book. Got a lot of respect for that guy.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

And interestingly enough, you made a post showing how conservatives are stupid two posts after this one.

Yes, you like your own ego stroked by fellow liberals on how smarter you feel. That's great.

Just posting the scientific research. No need to get mad about it. But the real reason I'm not a conservative these days has nothing to do with my hyper-intelligence. I just see a political movement seething and foaming with hate and misanthrope.

$1:

I'd consider "orchestrated" a exaggeration, maybe encouraged. However, being surprised that protest movement that consists of mostly suburban/rural, middle class conservatives consists of mostly whites is race baiting, nothing more, unless you truly don't understand how demographics breaks down in the United States

Again, I'm stating a fact--that's not race baiting. Tea Party protests are overwhelmingly white. Why? It's an interesting phenomenon. I don't necessarily think that they are fundamentally racist in nature, though there's a small but significant percentage of folks in there who are just angry that a black man with a funny name is president. However, with that demographic, they are hardly representing a cross-section of America, like FOX News likes to tell them.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Just posting the scientific research.

Actually, no. Not "The" scientific research, but "A" social science study.

There are all kinds of problems with using that paper to leap to the kinds of conclusions you'd like to. Here's a better description of what that study was all about.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/li ... index.html

There was existing data on the IQ scores of adolescents. They interviewed a selection of those participants at ages 18 - 28 in 2001 - 2002. Some of that subsection identified themselves as "very liberal". Some identified themselves as "very conservative". The study did not show the IQs of Liberals versus Conservative. It showed a subset of those 18 to 28 year olds who chose to self-identify.

So what you've got is a subsection of a subsection who in a particular era have made a subjective decision based on what they judge specific ideologies to be, and what they'd prefer to be identified as.

From the article...

$1:

Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart," he said.

Let's consider who's not covered in this study. Where are the people who sometime after their 29th birthday might have switched to conservatism. If I look will I find a study showing of those switching ideologies more switched from liberal to conservative, than conservative to liberal? I know me, that's where I'd fit, and "the scientific research" shows I've always scored high on IQ tests.

Also self identifying with a particular ideology can change in different political climates.

Also, a recent study showed more Americans now identify as Conservatives than Liberal. I think it was 40% to 20%. So, if double the group are self-identifying as conservative, and 98 is the average IQ of the average American (and it is, I checked), doesn't it seem likely that 98 would be the average IQ score for Conservatives in the Kanazawa study?

Also, that study was not primarily looking for Conservative versus Liberal IQ scores. They were more interested in illustrating their belief certain attitudes would better serve the evolutionary process. The complexities of what might make a person conservative, or a liberal, throughout their lives, and what in those IQ scores might actually identify what were ignored in service to an alternative agenda.

I know this. I was listening to the Conservative young guns speak at the recent PACs, and other conferences, and most of them seemed pretty bright to me. I suggest there may be a Conservative youth, resurgence movement on the rise, and those now self-identifying may represent a different demographic than what that study suggests. I see young conservatives like Lila Rose, and Jason Mattera, and Lee Doren, and I want an IQ recount.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Actually, no. Not "The" scientific research, but "A" social science study.

There are all kinds of problems with using that paper to leap to the kinds of conclusions you'd like to. Here's a better description of what that study was all about.

Yes, the primary problem being that the political extremists don't accept science, so it wouldn't matter how many studies were posted here: it's against their ideology therefore they reject it.

Actually, extreme liberals are often guilty of the same. ON the basis of race, blacks score significantly lower than whites on IQ scores, and you should see the liberals doing back flips to try to reconcile that one. Kind of like the deft, but ultimately feckless, rhetorical acrobats you are trying.

$1:

I know this. I was listening to the Conservative young guns speak at the recent PACs, and other conferences, and most of them seemed pretty bright to me. I suggest there may be a Conservative youth, resurgence movement on the rise, and those now self-identifying may represent a different demographic than what that study suggests. I see young conservatives like Lila Rose, and Jason Mattera, and Lee Doren, and I want an IQ recount.

I don`t think the study concluded that there is no such thing as a smart conservative, so finding a smart one hardly invalidates the conclusions.

Another study found specifically that social conservatives were the dumb ones, and that fiscal conservatives were smarter than the comunist-minded(http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/200809/conservatives-are-dumber-and-smarter-liberals). I particularly like this study because I'm a social liberal and fiscal conservative.

It makes sense to me, especially seeing how social conservatives like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin pander to ignorance. They appeal to those who don't want to think, they want to be told what to think.