:)

"Anyone who believes that they have a right to take other peoples earnings by force or believes that they can dictate rights of association no matter what, is not an intelligent person. One of the most intelligent men of the last century was Hitler."
If we accept Hitler was intelligent and he believed he had the right to take people's stuff by force, then it shows that intelligent people can believe in theft.

You guys are both cutting me some extra slack for morning pre-coffee dumbness. That is very kind of you (but I still take the hit for rotten grammar.)

Jan

You guys are both cutting me some extra slack for morning pre-coffee dumbness. That is very kind of you (but I still take the hit for rotten grammar.)

Jan

Right. My Dad always said "Life is a Bell Shaped Curve." I don't get too excited unless it is at least one standard deviation from the center. One can prove anything with statistics. Just ask Bernie.

Remember the controversy when The Bell Curve was published? That was about a 3-4 point difference, too.

Yes, but what is the threshold of relevance? What is the margin of error? I agree that the premise is flawed but to validate a premise with such a narrow difference is junk science.

If someone is saying that liberals are smarter than conservatives, then they are making a quantitative statement, which is provable by measurement. Given that the liberals suffer by any comparison proves that their assertion is false.

The liberals have dominated the so-called basket weaving courses, while the conservatives have dominated most of the stem courses, which isn't surprising, given their bent toward hard facts. However, true freedom lovers have been confused into believing that they are two DIFFERENT groups, rather than ONE group, fighting over the spoils.

"Conservatives" AND "liberals" want big government. They just want different groups to be the beneficiaries. Neither group wants small government.

I could have gone with "There (comma) " ...
:)

http://www.plusaf.com/_troll-pix/trol...

:)

I think the word you want here is "cognition", not cognizance. All politicians operate on emotions; that's what moves crowds, of any persuasion. Conservatives, esp. the religious Right, use fear and guilt. Liberals use greed and need. All disagreements, in the Gulch and elsewhere, poke the emotional nerve centers. Anyone purely logical and objective is smeared as cold, unfeeling, mean-spirited, heartless. They even speak of "emotional IQ" as the skill to manipulate others.

Emotional people are not necessarily stupid. Non-emotional people are not necessarily rational. IQ as tested on IQ tests does not assure that politically conservative people are smarter across the board. All values held are glued in place by emotion. That is the mechanism of human survival.. It takes Reason to sort out emotional responses, as in "Check your premises." That's why emotions are only a diagnostic tool. It takes Reason to decide how to use this tool.

Nice being on your side for a change.

Agree.

Hence Gary Johnson, running for President as Libertarian on the "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" ticket. See www.garyjohnson2016.com

Does 2 or 3 or 5 IQ points really make a difference? Applying quantitative analysis to a qualitative discussion is inherently flawed. A statistician might look at these results and wonder the same.

I think they are a smaller lot, and within that lot, you'll probably see some smart, educated ones.
Basically, they were trying to draw a conclusion between 2 parties. That's a pretty broad paint brush. I know some fairly smart Libs - good intentions, just misguided. I also know a few real dumbaz republicans.

Homonyms are a bitch

What about those who are indoctrinated without realizing what life's all about (I consider them mall rats). Who have never had responsibilities or had to face their own struggles (trust fund babies).. Those are two different and distinctive types, as well as those who believe this is a democracy instead of a republic. I think that liberalism is a very large tent that is very accommodating..

Matching the tool to the job often makes the operator look much better.

Your definition of "liberal" is traditional. The Dem party stole the term "liberal" decades ago because socialist just wasn't popular. Outside of the US liberal has a more traditional definition similar to yours. The article attempts to explain the differences, but doesn't entirely succeed.

Really good metaphor. My brother is learning to drive on the track. He has a Cadillac CTS-V (damn fast car). One of his friends and an instructor takes a Dodge Dakota out and laps people to show them how much the driver matters. Don't think the Dakota lapped my brother, but a woman instructor in a stock Miata did!