“Studies” like this one don’t deserve to be given any attention by rational people.  Expect for it to be extensively referred to by MSNBC.

So obvious.

Study makes perfect sense if you think about it. Think about all of the historically racist states in the nation, states that had Jim Crow laws and were affected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They have 2 things in common; they are Red States that the conservative Republican Party win every year in elections and they also have the worst public education systems in the country. Texas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama…all of em are conservative and uneduated States. And if you really think about it, Conservatism isnt an intelligent ideology.Theres only one thing in this world, in life, thats certain; and thats ”change”. Things are going to change and theres nothing you can do about it. The ones that understand that and can adapt are usually more intelligent than the ones that try to hold on to the “The Way Things Were”. Thats why alot of Southerns hold the Confederate Flag so dearly. And the most unintelligent of those Southerns are usually the most racist.

This is no surprise.  Poor conservatives are so ignorant they vote against their own interests and support politicians who pander and race-bait while fooling them into thinking they’re on their side while ripping them off. 

you must be one of those low IQ social conservatives who don’t like studies and facts

AND watching Fox News

Didn’t need an extensive study to come up with that conclusion. http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/1/6/8/5/7/0/wahoooo-15138234824.jpeg

So basically the point of this is saying if your a bigot you tend to not be well informed?

Anyone wanna take bets if this irks virtually every single religious group around the world?

Kind of interesting, but I’ll take it with a grain of salt. I can understand the correlation but you can’t pretend that racism hasn’t historically been practiced by intelligent people. Heck, prejudice is alive and well at ultra-white Ivy league schools. 

The people who feel that way are usually the people addressed in these type of studies.

While there is no doubt that the socially conservative racist base of the republiklan party is extremely stupid, I would caution against using IQ as an indicator.

The IQ test was designed by Alfred Binet to diagnose brain injuries or diseases, not to measure a single quantity called “intelligence.”  Whenever someone uses an IQ score to indicate “intelligence” or lack thereof, I cringe. 

Study suggests low IQ and conservatism go hand in hand?

In other news: water is wet.

I think they haul out these studies every five years in honor of Joseph Goebbels. 

Sounds like some Psychologist at Brock University is trying to say he is intelligent. Why does he need to make that point? I suspect some people have their doubts.

Nevermind.
Somebody bring back the cancel button!

They also tend to be states where the income levels are quite low, obesity levels are quite high, and also states that receive more support from the federal government.

As I noted on the LiveScience site:

As someone who’s had a chance to listen to avowed liberals talk about black conservatives and conservative women, I can tell you any correlation between conservatism and racism or other types of bias is spurious: what you’re really measuring is the correlation between political ideology and the willingness to lie.

Also, the definition of “prejudice” used in this study, if this article is anything to go by, is itself prejudiced. If you define prejudice to include bigotry against religious belief, for example, then I think you’d find somewhat different results.

The plain and simple truth is that everyone has prejudices and everyone has subjects about which they are conservative. The particular subsets of prejudices and conservative bugaboos examined in this study tells us far more about the authors of the study than society in general.

As opposed to the high IQ , Hope and Change, Obama money mouthbreathers who despise Israel.

and yet just yesterday we learned that people smart enough to make it onto JEOPARDY don’t watch MSNBC … http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jeopardy-contestants-cant-identify-rachel-maddow/

They’re not voting against their own interests; they’re voting according to a preference order of interests that doesn’t coincide with yours.

I’ve noticed many times over the years that liberals seem to be particularly slow in comprehending that not everyone shares the same set of interests.  It probably goes hand in hand with their sheeplike longing for a strong hand to order everyone about, as illustrated in the writings of Tom “Why can’t we be more like China” Friedman or the implicit “why won’t you all just obey me” whining in Obama’s SOTU last Tuesday.

Social conservativism and general prejudice go with class and area.  IQ tests are classist in that they tend to equate general intelligence with the kind that is accessible only to the “right kind” of people.  This study therefore doesn’t surprise me, but also doesn’t hold much water, and it’s a shame to see liberal people forgetting the facts of IQ in a hasty attempt to insult political adversaries.

liberal progressives like Margaret Sanger founder of planned parenthood that supported eugenics
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm

What about progressive president Woodrow Wilson?
google them and learn your history ;)

Liberals are the most tolerant and kindest of all people. They don’t prejudge people at all. Not based on race, socio-econ status, education, religion, sex..  Well, that is unless you happen to be a white male southerner who goes to church and may vote republican. Then you’re just stupid and hateful(everyone knows that).
Liberals are the smartest, brightest people in the universe. That’s why all leftist nations have been the most successful ever.  And they are smart enough to believe every university study reported on Mediaite that confirms their bias…oops, I mean their understanding of what’s true.

You brought us giddiness from intrade a couple months ago?

How is that buy working out for you?

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474

Further support of the conclusions of this study can be found by reading the comments from the creepy, far right wingnuts on this website.  In particular: WIinWI2, Gloves Waxy Donahue, and Tina_Tampa (aka Tiny and Tuna).  These three embody the disappointing intellectual level of the far right wingnuts.

Rent free. :)

olbyloon diversion…rent free.

This just in:  water is wet.

What about that study that said liberalism is a mental disorder? Did that deserve any attention? Yes there are many biased studies. This might be one of them.

Apparently the sky is blue and water is wet as well.

LOL!  I didn’t see yours before I commented.

Hey Francis…while we’re on the topic of IQ, perhaps using a headline that applies the term “hand-in-hand” to more than two items is the product of a low IQ. It appears she got her journalism degree from the same place Timmy Christopher got his.

I used to call her Tina_Tampon but since the rules have changed re: language I’ve stopped.

You loons are as original as white paint.

Is this saying those that are socially conservative and test lower are the most racist? Or that people who tend to be racist are less intelligent, and tend to be socially conservative?

I ask because, for example, African Americans tend to hold socially conservative beliefs, and tend to test lower, so is the study saying they are the most racist/prejudice? Or that if you are racist, you most likely are less intelligent, and socially conservative?

This seems like a *bleeped* up study. There are so many socio-economic factors that contribute to IQ tests, scholastic test scores, positions on conservative issues, and home life that can affect your upbringing and adulthood…  

And to insinuate that intelligent people or socially liberal people are not racist or prejudice is hogwash. I would put money on people who believe conspiracy theories, like 9/11 was an inside job, or something, would tend to have lower intelligence levels… but racism and bigotry is prevalent in every SES, and in every race, and liberal or conservative people. 

Personally, I think this study has a hint of racism or bigotry within it….

So about half the country affiliates as not conservative, 310 million people in the US, and yet you have to reach back decades to find 2 examples of stupid opinions of a liberal.  Nice. 

“low IQ, Social Conservatism, And Prejudice”
…….. In other word – DITTOHEADS!

“Piles” Limbaugh was:
- married four times;
- Ruined his hearing and lost his teeth by using un-prescribed cracked Oxycontin – Google “opiate hearing loss”;
- Dodged the draft to Viet Nam because of “extreme anal cysts”;
- was stopped at customs with a thousand unprescribed Viagra tablets coming back from a “sex resort” in the Dominican Republic.

His most amazing trick is that he has convinced millions of lower class
Americans that the ultra rich shouldn’t have to pay taxes.  This moral
disaster making over 57 million a year is a working class hero!

The first thing that appears to me when I see a group of stoners on one side of the street with droopy pants smoking weed, and on the other side I see a group of kids volunteering at a car wash for some school or church is gee, the stoners are so much more intelligent than the conservative kids…

Now now Anon you are getting very insulting.  That’s a liberal trait.

Charles.  Easy on the insults.  Why are you liberals so angry all the time?  

Like liberals don’t do the same.  Please.  Let’s see some facts

Henry.  More insults.  Why do the liberals alway have to be so insulting?  It doesnt’ serve you well and actually supports the opposite of this study

Gloves.  You are always on the mark.  Barry not only hates Isreal, he hates America.  Probably comes from being raised in Indonesia.

Interestingly the areas of those states that have the lowest performance are blue islands or run by Democrats.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y49/pspauld/Election2006.png

The blue areas in the South are the ones struggling with education, crime and poverty. Examples like New Orleans, Memphis and several pockets of blue in red states have the most crime and lowest test scores, yet they are heavily Democratic.

It is the same when you look at this map of the last election. The majority of the Democratic blue areas are those with the worst test scores, poverty and crime;

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7-c44du1Hak/TjynIdmahNI/AAAAAAAAFKw/2uzaKO_qLyI/s1600/2010+Election+Map.png

The gray areas in the Southwest went Democratic in the red states…and they are some of the worst performing areas  in the state with high levels of drop out rates and crime.

Its hoof in hoof in the herd mentality of conservatism.

Darn those scientists and their lib’rul scientific methodology!

So true.

We are constantly told by the left how socially conservative blacks and hispanics are. This study is plainly racist.

LMAO!! Complete BS and you know it! LMAO!!!

Nothing surprising here…

And how has conservative cultism been doing, worked so well in IRAN and NORTH KOREA and all over Africa and hows that conservatism working down under? And having all those free-market religious conservatives gaining control of the ARAB world.

In fact conservatives are a nightmare that people have to survive, or do you not think that education is a plot against conservatism.

If a conservative’s idea of smart people is game show contestants, then you’re the perfect example of why this study is accurate.

Yes and there were Jews who thought joining the Nazis would save them.

Yeah, those southern redneck nations  are the epitome of success.
You might want to check a history book and study the chapters detailing the world post-1865.

Another example: Notice how STUPID everyone on this thread sounds that uses the term “You Liberals”! LMAO!!

Slay them straw men, bagger.

This is self-evident. Why would someone take the side of Rush Limbaugh against MIT scientists on the issue of climate science, for example? Why would a radio talk show host have any idea what he is talking about next to people who study the stuff for a living? You have to be either having an axe to grind or stupid. Same goes for evolutionary biology, idea of race, etc. This is not even remotely surprising.

The Cons have a hard time believing in Science.  Maybe that’s one of the reasons why the pro-science guy didn’t do so well in the the polls.

There was a study done for something sooooo OBVIOUS???

Angry all the time?

He makes $57 million / year partly because liberal people like you obsess over him thus giving him publicity, more name recognition, and fame. 

Why do you feel the need to insult him so harshly? Why are you such an angry hateful person? 

Oh Oh, they are on to you John, it deserves a lot of attention because it has been shown to be true over and over again.

Most African-Americans are socially conservative… The black population overwhelmingly opposes gay marriage and is pro-life (look up the stats).

Are you saying that Black people are stupid?
(This is an example of the race card, which you libs love to throw out). 

and then there are the home schooled, who are educated by people as dumb as they are . . this accounts for the success of Fox News, repetition and alarmist rhetoric.

Well, those generalities must prove this study wrong, NOT

No, she was not a eugenicist. 
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2011/apr/08/herman-cain/cain-claims-planned-parenthood-founded-planned-gen/ 

Cite the study. 

Sir, you seem to have forgotten that they are red states run by conservatives. No such problem exists in the north where they are overwhelmingly liberal. Your thesis is null and void.

In the 2010 elections a poll was done that found which demographics were the most illiterate when it came to politics. The same demographic voted 98% for Obama in 2008.

I agree that racism – hell, ignorance, for that matter – knows no bounds.

That being said, it is conservatives as a group who have generally dismissed the abundant research conducted on behalf of global warming, evolution, and other science-based matters. Furthermore, it was conservatives who fought to maintain the Jim Crow laws that prevailed for so many years, and the so-called progressives who fought to change them.

What bothers me most, however, are attacks on the teaching profession as exemplified by the recent crusade to eradicate ”bad teachers.” Like any profession, there will be some who are not quite up to par. But why go after teachers when the vast majority – and I’m speaking from experience here - are hard-working, committed individuals who know they are never going to get rich in their chosen profession? Why not go after bad pilots, police officers, doctors, bankers, and lawyers, for that matter?

A society that attacks educators using distorted facts and anomalous incidents is a society that is doomed to ignorance.    

And this makes me sick to my stomach.

Saying what liberals have known for years ;)

The study was not about Democrats. Nice try, though.

This explains Glen Beck,Rush Limbaugh, and their followers.

Thats a false equivalency.

Just because Sanger and Wilson were mentioned doesnt mean they were the last liberal “opinions” that were stupid.

They just happen to be the most interesting to mention because their era was the last time progressives shared their vision for the direction of the country openly and honestly with the public. (It ended up being such a disaster for the progressive movement that they have been in the shadows ever since. They even had to change their name from “progressive” to liberal, until of course “liberal” became a derogatory term, so now its back to progressive, or even “populist” now- that the nom du jour for democrat labeling.) 

Before, Sanger would go on public speaking tours talking about the danger of poor and stupid people breeding, and that abortion and contraceptives were needed to keep undesirables from procreating.

Now, liberals’ opinion of that hasnt changed much,  they just won’t say it out in public. Now its all about “passing the bill to see what’s in it” as Pelosi famously said. Thats the liberal way of doing things, without the idiot public having to know what the plan is.
There are plenty of modern day liberals with stupid opinions. have you heard Harry Reid/Chuck Schumer/ Debbie Wasserman-Schultz/ Nancy Pelosi/ etc. etc. etc speak much?How abut Ed Schultz, Janeane Garofalo, Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton, or any daytime news anchor on CNN or MSNBC.

I think progressives/liberals should be more honest about what they want for the country. Do you want full fledged socialism and wealth redistribution? Just be honest and admit it, then we will let the american people decide what they want.

The truth is progressives are dishonest about their true intentions because they know their real plans for the future of the country will never win on the battlefield of ideas.

We’re just telling the truth. We can’t help it that the truth is negative to conservatives.

That wasn’t a study. It was just a right-winger’s political commentary book.

The problem is that poll was a sham. What it defined as the “right” answers to its questions were based on conservative ideology, not objective fact.

Conservatives tend to be stupid and racist? Wow. What’s next, are they going to tell us that water is wet and fire is hot?

This is no surprise to people with higher IQ levels.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20101027/3003/researchers-find-a-liberal-gene.htm
There you go. Have you heard of this website called Google? You can look up things, and can find out information on your own without asking others to find it for you.

Self reliance is not as hard as you think, you should try it sometime.

Your low IQ is showing.

Article most likely was referring to these types of folks http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/1/6/8/5/7/0/wahoooo-15138234824.jpeg

Oh, yeah… you liberals are so intelligent at least three of you have tossed out the same cliche..

Jeopardy isnt just a “game show”.. its as if your saying all game shows need an equal amount of intelligence to be on it, which is a pretty stupid thing to say.

You have to be pretty damn intelligent to be on jeopardy. Perhaps you are a little bitter…what, did you not make the cut or something?

I hope they didn’t spend too much on a study to tell us what we already knew, that teabaggers are stupid and racist.

I will not go look, but I bet heads are exploding on the blaze’s comment section.

Then it must have taken you a while….

All anyone would have to do is read the comment section of Mediaite to know this is true. Quite possibly the most audacious collection of total idiots assembled in one place on the internet.

And you made yourself  part of that collection.

I think for “sham,” you could have used “lie.”

Have you read anything in the last 40 years, or did you form all your opinions as a child and then . . . wait!

Sorry.

What studies of this kind don’t define very precisely is the difference between stupidity and foolishness.

If you actually read the study then NO it’s just a variant gene all humans posses variants on genes. This one means that you are OPEN to LEARNING about people their points of view and have more friends. So the logical conclusion would be the opposite is true for conservatives ie narrow minded few friends and hate learning new things. Thus the LOW IQ. See how science lines up well.

Have you read it? If not, then trying to fold your opinion into it is, well . . . you supply the final word.

Blacks score lower on IQ tests than all other races. Mexicans score lower than whites. 

Actually that phrase is the product of an ability to visualize three persons holding hands together. I realize that any number above two may be a challenge for some readers, but it was a risk the columnist was apparently willing to make.

Sometimes truth comes in waves.

True. Since we’re dealing with conservatives, they might think “sham” is short for “ShamWow”.

Surely your pastor or priest or Televangelist has something that’ll soothe your tortured soul? Isn’t that what you go to church for?

It doesn’t seem you’re getting all the value out of your religion that’s there to be had.

And I do mean, “be had.”

And it doesn’t surprise me to see you coming up with a laser-like analysis of a study you’ve never read.

Jumping the gun a bit, are we?

“I think a gene variant is what some have labeled a disorder..Im not sure if thats exactly the case but any variance is by definition an abnormality.”

Thanks for showing your ignorance. STOP THINKING! Gene variance does not mean a trait expressed by that gene is a disorder. That article says no such thing. The gene pool, by definition, has a lot of variance, and from a biological standpoint, that is GOOD! The deeper the pool, the better since it improves the survivability of that particular species by giving it “options.” That variance actually PREVENTS the occurrence of genetic disorders (look at African lions that mate within the pride for example.)

.  
So your comment about “liberalism being a mental disorder” was intellectually vacuous like I had already known. It’s one thing to regurgitate a well known rightwing maxim about libs, it’s another to codify it as scientifically cogent. Dumbass.

Snap!

Although successful Jeopardy contestants generally do possess impressive (albeit shallow) bodies of knowledge.

I’m not sure that it’s meaningful that three of them happened to have not watched Maddow, but it gives the wingnuts hope.

And I say, whenever you can give your fellow creatures hope, that’s a win in one column or the other.

Thanks for the link, not that it will shed light for those who wish to believe otherwise.

Ah, so there IS a study…! 

No I did not say I agreed with saying the study found the variance to be a disorder. AlI I linked to was to prove that the study existed since its clear that was being challenged, and this was a study that linked liberalism to a gene variant. I think it isnt definitive one way or another to either call it a disorder or to rule it out. Your “logical conclusion” is nothing but a false equivalence between social interaction and IQ, but in realty those two have very little in common. In fact many abnormally high IQ people are socially stunted in some capacity.

Source?

I laughed out loud when reading this, thats how stupid your argument is.

Honestly, are you really making the case that ALL gene variants are good? LOL talk about being vacuous..

Ironically you are making the very unscientific, highly opinionated assumption about this variant being good for someone as it is to label it being a disorder. The truth is the study did not cast aspersions on whether or not it was a healthy gene variant.

By the way, you dont have to use big words to pretend your smart or something, because you botched it.

“intellectually vacuous” is totally redundant, and using codify and cogent in the same sentence just makes you sound like a smug jackass.   

Heres another study that I think will be helpful for you to know:

http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt/archives/2006/04/study_using_big.php 

Study: Using big words needlessly makes you seem stupider

The term is “social” conservatives.  The ones who believe the government
has the right to tell you what to do in bed, who to marry, what shows
you can watch, what books you can read, and of course what religion to
follow.

Not “economic” conservatives.  Which believe in Laissez Faire dealings
with business and low tax rates.  Some of which, I agree with.

Also, I would like to point out that the party that likes to see
themselves as a seed of the earth, no fancy book learning, non elite
class of people, sure do get upset when you call them stupid.  

Dontdoubtme -

How is “intellectually vacuous” redundant? You “totally” don’t know what redundant means, do you??

I’ll counter your one certain thing, that “things are going to change” with another certain thing: we only have what we’ve experienced before to base future behavior on.

There will always be a function for both conservative and liberal approaches to every situation. If the liberal side can convince the majority of the group (or the leaders) that they’re right on this one, then that is the way to go. If, OTOH, the conservatives can convince the group that the liberal idea on this particular topic is naive or somehow way overexposes the group to risk, then the liberal idea will not be pursued.

Both sides have their good and bad points.

note: My analysis in no way implies the Republican Party is reasonable. They’ve been taken over by the fringe. Conservatives have no party in America.

dontdoubtImanidiot

“ Honestly, are you really making the case that ALL gene variants are good? LOL talk about being vacuous..”

That is NOT what I said. Typical words from a distortionist. I was referring to the context of your usage of the term. That’s why I QUOTED it. You inferred a gene having a variant = said gene is defective. That is scientifically false. I am a biologist, It is a fallacious statement. Stop changing goalposts. I am not going to respond to your strawmen. It detracts from the absurdity of the specious claim you were making. 

Google redundancy.

Those are indeed facts. And not a wingnut on this site or anywhere else can refute ‘em. Oh except, stupids like gloves and tina.

“…unless you happen to be a white male southerner who goes to church and may vote republican. Then you’re just stupid and hateful(everyone knows that).”
No, not unless you say stupid and hateful things. I have southern male religious friends who don’t say stupid hateful things, but they’re not stupid and hateful, they just have different opinions. 

Liberals haven’t cornered the market on vitriol, you can see that by reading ANY of these threads. You’ll see the same vicious attacks here from conservatives that you’ll see from us “libtards”! 

The story suggests that the researchers relied primarily on statistical analysis to develop their conclusions.

I think they could have saved themselves some time — and collected a lot of empirical evidence — simply by downloading comments from Mediaite.

There’s something fishy about conservatives who get early retirement with gravy benefits from Big Government.

To: dontdoubtme

The study had NOTHING to do with anything being a disorder. It is completely IRRELEVANT to your premise. What a dumbass you are.

If you are looking for your true love you should absolutely be out and about this year!————-> sugarcupid.C○MIt is a person’als place where you can meet success’ful rich men, classy mature women, rich women looking for marriage, or just meet beautiful friends and singles.2681567457857

Yes, I did read it. 

Jesus. Source? What Malone said isn’t even controversial among lefty social scientists. Do some homework and then rejoin the conversation.

In other words, you have no idea what the source might be.

Wingnut fever dreams, perhaps?

Oh forget it.

Oh yea, Robert Byrd’s buddies. 

She surrounded her self with well know eugenicist
look at her writings 
Birth Control Review, May
1919, p. 12
also
Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization

What they’re trying to say is WHITE conservatives are stupid. That’s all. Don’t read anything into it beyond that.

How many blacks have won a Nobel Prize in any of the science categories? And if you’re alleging racial bias, feel free to supply the names of those great black minds that were overlooked due to white racism.

Also, I give you permission to go back in history and provide a list of all the great black minds that contributed to the progress of human understanding.

Why are black people more religious than whites? Why don’t you ridicule Obama for his belief in the sky god?

Cept in this case it’s just the usual smelly dead fish.

I took the Jeopardy test at Sony Studios in Culver City back in 2001 and was one of 9 people, out of a self-selected group of around 300, who passed the knowledge test. Yes, I know. I’m awesome. But, shockingly, I must have failed the personality test because they never called me to appear on the show. And I wore a suit and everything! P.S. I don’t know who Rachel Maddow is either.

Pres. Ronald Reagan surrounded himself with communists while he was in Hollywood. That did not make him a communist. Planned Parenthood was MAINLY founded to help women control their own reproductive rights.,,not for nefarious purposes like “killing black babies.” You are free to believe whatever narrative you want.

The first paragraph of your comment is impenetrable. “. . . any correlation between conservatisim and racism or other types of bias is spurious  . . .” ANY correlation?

And there was no indication that the research methods even approached the “willingness to lie.” I think that’s your particular bugaboo on display.

Of course the researchers used their own definition of “prejudice.” The fact that it doesn’t include every element that you consider germane doesn’t render their definition any less useful to their research — for which they have a professional responsibility to define as precisely as possible, within the context of that research.

On the other hand, the first half of your third paragraph makes perfect sense. Everyone has prejudices, as well as personal definitions of what prejudice might be. The belief that jumping off a cliff — in the absence of personal proof that the outcome is negative — could be called prejudice. But I’m not jumping off any cliffs, regardless.

As for the “subsets of prejudices and conservative bugaboos,” I think what it tells us mostly is that the researchers had to simplify and clarify what they were studying in some consistent fashion, or the data they gathered would remain mere noise. And what that tells us about the authors is that they were careful in designing their study.

Your avatar is well chosen.

These people are evaluating intelligence by how closely one’s view of the world corresponds to their own. In other words, intelligence as an ideological test. Don’t waste time trying to reason with them.

Please link these studies.

“Actually that phrase is the product of an ability to visualize three persons holding hands together. I realize that any number above two may be a challenge for some readers, but it was a risk the columnist was apparently willing to take. ”
***

Not sure where you got that one… Hand in hand is two people, or two things, working together, in cooperation, jointly…

It’s not hand in hand in hand….

(You want me to ask her to dumb down her headlines for you?)

LOL. What a surprise.

And as Czarina of Metaphors and Similes, you must be obeyed.

No thanks.

Are black people more religious that whites? Says who?

With regard to Obama’s religion, I have forgiven him for it, because it doesn’t seem to make him do crazy things.

Teachers and educations majors score on the low end of the scale. Though I tend to agree with you. The problem with the public education system is less lousy teachers than lousy parents.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/classicists-are-smart/comment-page-1/#comment-121553

If the year you’re talking about is 1969, the stoner kids grew up to be right-wing Fox News viewers shouting about keeping Medicare and the volunteering kids are now all seniors volunteering for social justice.

You’ve established your credentials as pond scum. Now you’re just polishing the turd.

Hey, it was you that stuck your foot out there for all to see, and insulted people in the process. 

Perhaps it’s best not to mock others for their ignorance when you don’t know what you are talking about…

Oh wait…

I found a few that disprove these claims or find them filled with errors.

http://www.physanth.org/association/position-statements/biological-aspects-of-race/?searchterm=race

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/race.htm

http://www.skepdic.com/iqrace.html

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf

But if it is “The Bell Curve” that you are speaking of, I will venture to say that you are not Asian.

Sources: Arthur Jensen, Charles Murray, Richard Herrnstein, Richard Lynn, Michael Hart, Philippe Rushton, James Watson, Linda Gottfredson, Byron Roth, Steve Sailer, Henry Harpending and almost every study done on IQ over the past 100 years. The military and NFL still use IQ tests and those confirm the studies as well. The whitest positions like QB and offensive line score the highest while RB and WR  tend to score the lowest. The NAVY Seals are disproportionately white compared to the racial demographics of the military.

and my name isn’t Jesus. Though a lot of women have in the heat of passion.

I never said a gene variant is always defective, or even inferred it. If thats how you read it then I suggest working on your reading comprehension skills.

But clearly you made the case for gene variants being a positive thing to suit your premise, which is also not always the case, so i called you out on it.

Lets recap: Someone (not me) said there was a study that said liberalism was a mental disorder. You asked to site the study with derision, as if it didnt exist. You were wrong. A study DID exist. Point for me.

Next, I provided your ignorant, lazy ass the information about the study that you could have easily googled yourself. Point for me again.

I also called you out for using words that only made you sound like an asshole. So what do you do to respond? You double down on that strategy, using even more words that only pompous douchebags would use, which by the way I think is awesome! All you accomplished was to prove me right about you. I win again! Im up 3-0.

Then finally, your last gasp effort is to try to make inferences on what I said, only weakening your stance. Next time, base your arguments on fact instead of what you THINK someone meant and you wont be so completely and utterly destroyed when you end up being wrong.

Call the fight…four rounds, four knockdowns. This is like Tyson- Spinks, only if Spinks was too stupid to not stay down.

You’ve read it? Interesting, in that the study hasn’t been published online, as far as I can tell.

Oh wait! You mean you read the article about the study . . . the article that points out how distorted anyone’s view would be unless they read the actual study to assess the methodology employed.

I stand by my statement.

I can only imagine the average IQ of the people who go to this site.

Um, sir eli, I hate to burst your bubble, but the Civil Rights Act was passed by Republicans, and it was the Southern Democrats that opposed it.

I personally am not a fan of the GOP establishment, but your revisionist history is fodder for a “study” about how stupid and ignorant anyone who thinks traits can be projected on to all members of a political party are.

Malone isn’t a Asian name.  So, according to them, we all know where this puts you.

The differential is factual. These are lefty non-genetic rationalizations for why they persist.

I never did understand why people want the right to work for less.

Ummm . . . “Czarina of Metaphors and Similes” is an *imaginary* title.

I’m sorry if I’ve inadvertently set you up for a big disappointment.

please site your source. I have mine.

Also, thanks for proving you didn’t read them. One is a pdf for crying out loud. So you make claims, don’t site sources, and ignore any source to the contrary. That doesn’t appear to be very intelligent now does it?

Did you respond to my my question about the abject dearth of black scientific/mathematic achievement? Start listing the geniuses.

Actually, he’s showing things that prove the thesis. White bigots in concentration will join politically to oppress minorities. White bigots will have poor schooling, but they’ll bind together politically to ensure that minority schooling is worse with even less opportunity to advance economically or otherwise. 

That’s how it seems, and how many here are interpreting it. but, if they are saying what I think they are saying, then the study might be a tad racist, and bigoted. 

one of us… one of us…

Is it in their interest to vote to work for less money?

Stephen Pinker and William Saletan haven’t ruled it out either. But the downside to stating the obvious is career suicide so you can hardly blame them.

“There will always be a function for both conservative and liberal approaches to every situation.”  
Okay sure – in THEORY.  

But there IS no “conservative … approach” these days. The closest thing to it is centrism. Instead, we’re seeing REACTIONARY approaches from people calling themselves “conservatives”. Being a conservative  is not synonymous with being a reactionary, but in this country, at this point in time, conservatives in the classic sense, go-slow cautious types, are totally disenfranchised, just as much as progressives. All we have are centrist governments accused of being liberal & reactionary governments made up of people who call themselves conservatives. Polls still say that a plurality to a majority of American voters self-identify as “conservatives”, but how many of them are practically disenfranchised by having to choose among candidates who might get into office (Vermont is the exception) who are either centrists or reactionaries? 

Yeah, you fail once again.

The study was what the original post was referring to and therefore very relevant. 

Its actually not “my job” to educate you anyway, but thanks for barking orders at me. Thats SOOO not arrogant sounding at all. LOL What are you some sort of 19th century Democrat Slaveowner?

Oh whoops. “Democrat Slaveowner.” Now I am the one being redundant. 

Liberals vote for a living wage….so we can feed and clothe our families, buy a home, send  your kids to college and retire comfortably, not go to the poorhouse.

You are exactly wrong. We are in need of MORE studies like this, to get at the truth.  

For example, one concern I have with this study is in the confluence of social conservatism, including religiosity, & bigotry. If you’re a white Baptist with a social conservative bent, that’s going to find you identifying with other birds of the same feather who are bigots – but are you PRIMARILY a bigot or secondarily a bigot in deference to the social norms of your peer group? You can’t tell from this study. More studies are needed.  

You do know that Fresh Prince is a comedy, don’t you?

also why do you have no friends on facebook and are only followed by porn bots on twitter?  That is really kinda sad.  Even if it is some Tony Clifton-esqe ruse, I really kinda feel sorry for you.  I am sure you have to tell yourself you are genetically superior while eating cheeseburgers at the campus food court or pleasuring yourself to European webcams.  (Dear Mediaite – that wasn’t an insult.  Look at the links on his page.  He wrote a blog about it.) 

Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as “Family life suffers if mum is working full-time,” and “Schools should teach children to obey authority.” Attitudes toward other races were captured by measuring agreement with statements such as “I wouldn’t mind working with people from other races.” (These questions measured overt prejudiced attitudes, but most people, no matter how egalitarian, do hold unconscious racial biases; Hodson’s work can’t speak to this “underground” racism.)

And as for social conservatives, as you described: 
http://www.gallup.com/poll/112807/Blacks-Conservative-Republicans-Some-Moral-Issues.aspx 

I can’t help but note you avoided answering my question and went with the ad hominem.

Instead of teachers, let’s go after bad Bankers, Insurance firms, crooked mortgage lenders, and Wall Street cheats……and others of their ilk…..

expatpatriotCollapse
Ummm . . . “Czarina of Metaphors and Similes” is an *imaginary* title.I’m sorry if I’ve inadvertently set you up for a big disappointment.
***
You really don’t understand a thing, do you?
Maybe it’s time for you to go walk off into the sunset, hand in hand in hand…

Yesterdays news.Never underestimate the ignorance of people in large masses,more than willing to be led by T.V./Radio geniuses.America has tired of this ongoing Celebration of Ignorance,let’s watch what happens this next election for proof positive results.

I take offense to that.  My parents both worked three jobs each to raise their family and make ends meet.  They said it was my job to go to school and learn and I did.

do they believe the government should be involved. I really don’t care what one person believes or doesn’t believe, but when the government gets involved that is when I have a problem.

That’s fantastic. Not sure what it has to do with my post, but I applaud you and your parents.

I think they are primarily fearful social Utopians with little worldiness and a big sense of under-empowerment. The rest of the list just flows from that. If they were not so scared for their personal security & future, a lot of the other ugly attitudes would melt away. If they were able to struggle past the initial brain pain & commit to watching something other than Fuppet News all the time, they would get a wider view of this wide, wild world & accept that we’re ALL alone & to some extent fearful. If they actually knew some minority peoples personally in a meaningful way, they wouldn’t have that out-sized fear of “the Other”. If they understood the way money & debt work they wouldn’t be equating the national budget to their own home budgets, and understand & accept the role the U.S. dollar plays in the world economy. If they were not occupied in working hard to affirm their sense of shared community in the comic notion of the literalness of the bible & birtherism, if they got over the pain in actually reading something that didn’t feed their preconceptions (It’s hard to do, learning – especially for adults; it can be PAINFUL, or feel just like pain.), and showed some curiosity in how things ARE versus how thing OUGHT to be, they’d be less dubious of the role of government & more demanding – for example, they wouldn’t let Obama get away with that stupid “God Bless America” ending, or his own pandering to the notion that national budgets are like household budgets (They’re not at all!). 

Tea Partiers crave sameness, predictability, control. As someone said above, the nature of nature is constant change. It’s a tough world for TPers.

Wait, you and Tim Malone are the same person aren’t you?  Oh wow, now this is really sad. 

Oh, and by the way, it is not the parents job to teach or do homework.  When I went to school, teachers taught, parents worked and children did homework.  Most of you didn’t go to private school and you all learned. 

In re Just Some Blowhard…

What a coincidence! Another person who didn’t like what I wrote was moved to comment and ALSO avoided answering the question.

and proper use of punctuation.

You just have to be lucky enough to get the right categories.

I’ll drink to that !

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.abstract
And yes, I am commenting on the articles I have read about the study, and giving my opinion, as is everyone on here, including you. 

There are about 150 comments giving their (ugly) opinions (attacking Conservatives), without reading the actual study to assess the methodology employed.

We’re more religious than whites because that is all we had to rely on when the chips were down.

I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally.

                                                                                W.C. Fields

I get it. Whitey’s fault. Fair enough. But blacks also continue to believe in a lot of crazy shit in Africa too.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/112807/Blacks-Conservative-Republicans-Some-Moral-Issues.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148361/Religion-Party-Strongly-Linked-Among-Whites-Not-Blacks.aspx 

http://articles.latimes.com/1997-04-19/local/me-50323_1_religious-participation

Have you watched Jeopardy lately? The program has been so dumb-ed down over the years they should call it GOPardy.

According the what I read about the study, that wasn’t how they determined what a social conservative is.

But, as far as gay marriage, I know that blacks tend to vote against it. 

So, if “us liberals” say we don’t want full fledged socialism and wealth redistribution” what are the odds you would say we were still lying about our “REAL” agenda?

I read the Gottfiedson link and she’s actually a rather high-profile supporter of group differences in IQ, which your own link, if you had bothered to read it yourself, shows. None of the other links dispute the persistent IQ differential between racial groups. You understand the difference between explaining it and denying it right? In other words, blacks score lower because X,Y, and Z causes.

I will answer that question.  Not many.  But is that due to genetic abnormalities or due to prejudices and preconceptions by the voting committee? Does it have anything to do with that most “Black” people were treated as slaves, property, and less than human since the rise of the Roman Empire to not more than 150 years ago?  The only way to scientifically study this is too take children from every race, raise them the same way, teach them the same things, then give them tests based on cognitive intelligence.  The argument you are stating is just the same as saying only Americans are genetically capable of going to the moon since no other country has done it. Believe what you wish, because no scientific study will ever sway you because you have already reached a conclusion based on feelings than facts.

“Malone isn’t a Asian name.  So, according to them, we all know where this puts you.”

Responses like this demonstrate that you (and I) are engaging someone who doesn’t understand basic principles of logic. In other words, he’s a black dude with a slightly higher than average IQ whose butt hurts.

and those X,Y Z causes have nothing to do with genetics.

To dontdoubtmeimanidiot

“I never said a gene variant is always defective, or even inferred it. If thats how you read it then I suggest working on your reading comprehension skills.”

Actually, you INFERRED it was because the premise of THIS discussion was liberalism being a mental DISORDER. You introduced that link  to support that premise. You equated variance with something BAD. This is your EXACT quote. 

“I think a gene variant is what some have labeled a disorder..Im not sure if thats exactly the case but any variance is by definition an abnormality.”

Here is your logical path.
Variance=Bad or abnormal.
Liberalism=genetic variant
Therefore, Liberalism= Bad/abnormal. 

Classic illogical deduction. 

We were talking about a specific subject, not genetics in general. Your argument was silly. It was disabused.

“But clearly you made the case for gene variants being a positive thing to suit your premise, which is also not always the case, so i called you out on it.”

Yes…genetic variance is a GOOD thing in MOST cases. It is scientific consensus. You were arguing the exact opposite by inferring any variance is a disorder or an “abnormality” – quote above. We have it in YOUR own words. That is the only reason you linked to that scientific study. You did not seem to understand the role variance plays in genetics. I do. I am actually a biologist and knew that information before hand. 

“Lets recap: Someone (not me) said there was a study that said liberalism was a mental disorder. You asked to cite the study with derision, as if it didnt exist. You were wrong. A study DID exist to which the original poster was referring to. Point for me.”

I have already responded to this flawed deduction. A) You didn’t cite a study that proved or showed liberalism was a mental disorder. B) You cited a study that showed liberalism was a genetic variant. This is where you make an illogical deduction. Genetic variance is not synonymous with disorders. Even your own article did not make such a conclusion. You did not cite any study to support the other idiot’s premise. 

“Next, I provided your ignorant, lazy ass the information about the study that you could have easily googled yourself. Point for me again.”

Calling a pot a kettle will never make it a kettle. Your link was irrelevant to the discussion and didn’t support ANY f8cking thing.

I honestly do not care if some ignorant moron on the internet thought I was a jackass. I DO NOT CARE. That, however, does not change the fact that you did not cite the study to support the specious claim about liberalism being a mental disorder. It’s getting boring responding to your ignorance!

low-iq-social-conservatism-and-prejudice-go-hand-in-hand

You know? Have a link? Or is it just a feeling?

You do realize that in an argument against what you perceive as vast generalizations that are not supported by fact but by political beliefs, its is best not to refute said argument by making a vast generalizations not supported by facts but by political beliefs.

Not many? Name one. And not all blacks were slaves. Surely there were plenty of black slave owners. Listen, if it makes you feel any better, I do think blacks are better athletes.

Didn’t Margaret Sanger, icon of the American left and founder of Planned Parenthood, and American Eugenics, Conduct similar studies on, and come to the same conclusion about BIack Americans?

Although contemporary left-wingers have tried to hush it up, it is a fact of history that
the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, the National
Research Council, Planned Parenthood and the pre-1960′s Democratic Party, all
supported the right of the US government to engage in Eugenic selection, while
thirty states adopted legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain
individuals or classes. Conservatives, orthodox Roman Catholics and radical
libertarians, on the other hand, were routinely ridiculed for their opposition
to such policies.

no, Strom Thurmond
Byrd left and apologized
Remember?

no
thats another thread

I agree.

As I Libertarian-conservative, I can’t stand social(ist)-conservatives.

Although prejudice is bi-partisan, everyone already knows that racism and bigotry are a sign of low intelligence.

Nothing new here.

Where did she say White’s fault?

The correct spelling would be:

please ‘cite’ your source – not ‘site’.

If you wish to be taken seriously as an intellect, then one must be able to spell accordingly or you will be considered just some blow hard.

You REALLY are stupid
The guy brought the information as a diversion on a thread that had NOTHING to do with INTRADE.

Now rocket brain
Got a reply other that socky, patsy anything.

How about just a complete sentence?

It doesn’t make me feel one way or another.  It amuses me to see you troll away at this and disappoints me to think you are only making this argument to make me feel a certain way.  Look Tim, I do have a job and am not in a twelve step program (again, not an insult – you wrote a blog about it) so I must get up in the morning.  Unless you can provide me to a link to a study that shows scientifically intelligence is based on genetics and genetics alone, I must bow out of this game.  I am glad I have provided you with some entertainment because I am sure those cam cites can get expensive.  In passing I will say, and I do mean this, I wish you luck in finding employment and wish you well in your sobriety.

Thank you

WiddleBabyDanielson,

Who do you think think she’s blaming the chips having been down on? If that wasn’t what she meant to imply, I will await her clarification.

To respond to your previous questions/claims, and there are many, seeing as how you are rather obsessed with me.

No, I’m not Asian. I’m Irish, and the Irish have the lowest IQs of any Western Europeans. Believing in differences in IQ amongst races and ethnicities doesn’t mean that one finds themselves to be superior in intellect. If I were terribly smart I wouldn’t be wasting my time with you.  

The fact that you keep bringing up Asians proves that you dont even understand what people like Murray and Hart are talking about. East Asians on average are smarter than Southeast Asians just like Western Europeans are smarter than Eastern Europeans on average, Irish and Jews excluded. To lump all Asians together makes no sense. Japs and Koreans don’t relate to Pinoys, Cambodians and Indians as fellow Asians, hell, the Koreans and Japs dont even like each other! 

As for my twitter and facebook, my last name isn’t Malone and I use both of them as a creative outlet. If I used my real name I could get in trouble at work. It’s also funny that someone who uses your screen name is busting my balls about that.

Finally, the climate people have evolved in over the past 50,000 years or so is what makes us different in terms of appearance and intelligence. People who evolved in cold weather climates on average are smarter than those who evolved in warm weather climates. People like Rushton, Hart and Lynn have detailed this pretty well. It’s a theory, not a proven fact. But if you look at history almost every major advancement in civilization has come from East Asia or Western Europe, mostly the latter. And the Germans, English, French and Italians are responsible for more brilliant contributions to the liberal arts than all other peoples combined.

Um, Mike

That when it all changed
Thurmond later represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 until 2003, at first as a Democrat and after 1964 as a Republican. He switched out of support for the conservatism of Republican presidential candidate and Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, who shared his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/02/whats_with_african_american_op.html 

http://boycewatkins.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/poll-60-of-african-americans-do-not-support-gay-marriage/ 

Dude, I usually don’t hand out compliments on this site too often, but you are on fire tonight.

The percentage of blacks who voted against gay marriage in California was determined by pollsters. It is not a vast generalization. Here is another vast generalization. Most Hispanics are Catholics. It is real.

As others have said, we all have a natural tendency to prefer the company of those who are most like us in appearance and attitude. It is a natural bias that can and should be harmless. It is harmless when we make friendship choices, but it is harmful when we let it override economic and professional choices.

This is bigotry and discrimination in America. This bigotry and prejudice is taught. From mother and father and friendships. It even emanates from our political leaders. Bigotry and prejudice are alive in 2012! Newton Leroy called Barack Obama the “Food Stamp President! Continuing with poor people should want paychecks, not handouts. In South Carolina, the center of bigotry and discrimination in the South as they still fly the Confederacy flag. Gingrich said this on Martin LutherKing, Jr. Day! He used the word “Liberals” in his statement which has infuriated many blacks in that state. His tactic in South Carolina smacks of the type of rhetoric used in his “Southern Strategy” and his “bread and butter” wordage bordering on racist. This candidate started a confrontational debate tonight when confronted with his second wife’s allegation of his request for an “Open Marriage”! Gingrich, being from Georgia, continues his stereotyping of blacks in his speeches. Santorum seconded the the continued stereotyping of blacks in his speeches with “I don’t to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.” Every TEA-GOP-Republican knows their oratory wording can make or break them depending on which state they are stumping and even the area of that state.

1. You provide a link and I will follow.  There are links to a twitter and blogger accounts of this Tony Clifton-esqe person.  So if I am obsessed, what does this say about you?

2.  I bring up Asians because I have read the Bell Curve and find it very very bad science and a product of the times it was made.  One of the conclusions in that is that Asians are the most intelligent race.  When some one such as yourself, brings these points up about Blacks and Latinos, I point that out to show them that their findings don’t exactly place their linage any higher.  As anyone who knows anything about genetics is that there really is no race.  Race is constantly changing.  It is what powers evolution.  This whole argument is really based socially than genetically, therefor it is based on nothing.

3.  You are one of the few people on here who see the irony of my screen name so I give you credit for that. I do have a blog, make videos, and what not under my real name and I do understand the need for some anonymity.  However, the depths that you have gone to create this reminds me of the movie “Catfish.” 

4.  The use of the word “Japs” tells me a lot about your true feelings.

and lastly, I find the whole argument stupid.  See point 2.

No. Source definitely required.

I don’t know. I’ve never been to Africa. However, like many others black and white, we didn’t have any guns but we sure clung to our Bibles.

To heck with how dumb social conservatives are. Who cares? All I know is that social liberals have more fun and spend far, far less time worrying about what others are doing.

Your request actually restores my faith in the faith of my opponents. You really don’t know do you? I envy your naivete.

Yes, I know it’s wikipedia but the support links are sound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#Race

Really? Like the Bushmen, I believe that humans arrived on Earth via a rope from the moon!

I have read this somewhere before about blacks tending to vote against gay marriage, don’t remember where. But I would have to strongly disagree with that statement. Speaking from my own personal experiences, I find that blacks are more broad-minded about gays than whites are. Without revealing too much details about my past, at one time I found myself in a situation where blacks represented about 80% of the population of where I was residing at the time. They were ten times more receptive to me than the whites were. Again, this is just based on my own personal observations and the black friends vs. white friends that I have retained throughout the years.

hahahahahahaha….it didnt take a study to figure this out…..like palin said about christie…..get ya pannies out of a wad conservatives…..low iq, racism, and conservatism go hand in hand…..DONT BLAME THE STUDY…..BLAME YASELVES………HAHAHAHAHAHAHA…..mix in a book every now and then…….the earth aint flat, climate change is real….and the planet is millions of years old……GET USED TO IT

my guess is the study was conducted solely on reading your posts……im sure the results hit you like a brick

HE WHO GETS HIT HOLLARS………HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

In all seriousness, I did demand a source for your claim because we tend to do that on this site. In all honesty, I can believe that different racial and CULTURAL groups will have different IQ scores because IQ tests are always CULTURALLY biased. Only a pure math test could be determined to be without cultural bias.
How would you do in an IQ test written in Chinese, even if you had a year to learn Chinese?

As for Wikipedia, no university accepts it as a credible source. I could use it to prove that I have a PhD in astrophysics and speak 100 languages fluently. The “wikipedia cops” would catch it and remove my “proof” soon enough, but not before a few hundred people believed it.

Since Wikipedia comes up first in any search, go to one of the citations and use that as your source, if it is credible.

YOU SIR ARE CORRECT….id keep it simple for the wingnuts tho…..id simply say “Birds of a feather flock together”

wingnuts from down south have a “Slave Mentality”….they would work for nothing if massa would let em

Chert Voemie,

In all seriousness and honesty, I have to question your seriousness and honesty. There are NO studies that show blacks to have IQ scores equal to whites. YOU site that study and then we can argue about the explanation for the variation.

 hahahaha….dont forget about ya dumb@$$ GOOD OL BOYS down there

Can you give an example where they’ve voted to work for less money?

Oh, so MIT scientists are the gold standard, eh?  Good to know, seeing as how this letter disputing global warming hysterics is co-signed by Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric scientist at MIT:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

And there are some jackasses who think making bizarre non sequiturs is somehow clever.

You’re right that conservatives have found themselves on the “stupid” sides of issues like global warming and racial justice (or at least the anti-science and prejudiced sides.) 

I don’t see how attacking teachers relates, though. I agree there may be a “stupid” or partisan motivation to attacks on teachers, but I believe there is also a more pragmatic explanation for criticisms of modern day teaching unions. Like anything else, bad teachers tend to arouse more attention than good ones from parents. When I was in high school, we had a battery of bad (uninterested, unprofessional, and ineffective) teachers and they got the attention of parents more than the mid-range or life-changing ones. Because parents feel a closer connection to teachers, due to their children, than say other professionals you’ve listed, they are understandably more concerned about eradicating bad ones.

Just my two cents on the issue, though I don’t see discontent with teaching unions as a strictly socially conservative viewpoint. As someone with socially liberal views, I have no problem being at least critical of teaching unions like the one in my town.

I’m quite familiar with the program and calling it a comedy may seem generous to some. It had its funny moments, I’ll say that. Either way, I don’t quite understand what you’re getting at with your comment so I don’t know how else to respond 

Forgive me if I don’t accept letters of the alphabet as counter arguments.

Says who? Every available study on the subject, that’s who. LOL.

Yeah, but the white parts compare rather favorably to Detroit and East St. Louis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nGw_vAnqPI

1. I’ve given you plenty of names, do the work yourself, dipshit.
Here’s a link on IQ, evolution and climate, something you didn’t address.
http://sq.4mg.com/LynnIQdiff.htm

2. I never said that about “Asians”. Race as a social construct, lol.

3. You dont understand the need for anonymity, but you post anonymously. 

4. My “true feelings”? Are you a chick? 

And differences in race and IQ are real. 

I should “give credit” for saying the support links are sound. You should give a sound support link instead.

HAH  PROOF! 

Ah! Pond scum that talks!

And these two figures — who between them have been dead for 135 years — are relevant how?

Interesting view of history, if by “interesting” I meant “completely fraudulent.”

Sanger and Wilson were bound by the knowledge and prejudices of their time. Let’s not forget that Abraham Lincoln was an unashamed white supremicist, a fact that doesn’t reduce his stature as one of the greatest Americans ever.

And the notion of progressives having to hide under the label liberal, and then having to hide (again) under the label of progressive, and now hiding under the label of populist? Pure nonsense.

So what if you can roll out a laundry list of people you think say stupid things. No one’s going to be impressed. Your opinion, unsupported by quotes or any sort of reference? Hot air.

And thanks for telling me (as a progressive/liberal) what what my secret plans are for America, and then calling me dishonest for it. However, I’m really not in the market for anyone like you telling me what I believe in. You’re not qualified to do so, by reason of dishonesty.

Any more than you’re qualified to comment on Sanger or Wilson’s beliefs.

Keep in mind of all the Vietnam-era veterans who didn’t have to share a foxhole with Limbaugh. He may have been doing our military a favor.

I think Verre’s point was that way too many people around here make unsubstantiated statements of the “some guy said” type as if their having asserted something was equal to proving it.

Hence, “Cite the study.”

“Try” to refute them.

OK, thanks.

I’m not actually surprised to read this, given the greater stresses on traditional black families compared to white families. Turning to religion in crisis (even subacute crises like “having a tough life”) is quite typical for human beings.

It’s one of the more perncious aspects of religion that the genuine solace it offers comes at the price of abandoning a rational view of the universe.

OK, thanks.

I’m not actually surprised to read this, given the greater stresses on traditional black families compared to white families. Turning to religion in crisis (even subacute crises like “having a tough life”) is quite typical for human beings.

It’s one of the more perncious aspects of religion that the genuine solace it offers comes at the price of abandoning a rational view of the universe.

No, Liberals like me don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh.  Ditto heads made Rush Limbaugh rich, by listening to his show every day. 

oh looky here! Obama nominates a JEOPARDY contestant to be a member of his administration.
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/12/06/ixnay-on-cordray-not-another-obama-czar/

now tell me how brilliant people are who make it onto JEOPARDY.

Well, when you vote for politicians that cater to the rich… you’re taking money out of your own pocket, and giving it to rich people IN HOPES that they will use that money to help the economy. Nothing is verified… no one is held accountable.. you hate the government having control.. but you’re fine with the government pandering to large companies that claim to create jobs. You’re fine with the government giving big companies million dollar subsidies without any verfiable proof they are creating jobs….

You’re FOR taxing rich people less than the average American.. don’t you realize you’ve basically been brainwashed by corporate interests and the GOP? You want people to take money from you and give it to big companies… INSTEAD of investing in America. Can’t you see how bizarre that is. You would rather tax big companies less, and tax the average suburban family more? And for what? Who does this benefit?  You vote to take money from average people and concentrate it in the 1% of society that is already so rich their children’s children won’t have to work. 

I think the big joke of all this is that conservatives are against big government… yet they want the government to control taxing people… and conservatives are actually being asked to be taxed more…. when their entire platform is less taxes… ‘

It’s sort of like 1984, double speak and all. You have people against taxes asking to be taxed more than the more fortunate. It’s mind-boggling and not just because it’s unfair but also because when you tax people with less money you raise less money and the reason the recession has been so deep is because rich people haven’t paid their fair share, while average americans have!

oh really? why don’t you tell that to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer
http://youtu.be/DVC28oemocA

sorry dude, i have no idea what your talking about. i’ve never seen nor posted that.

Greg, more insults!!  Why are you cons all so angry, and stupid?  

No, it’s saying that a lot of rightwing conservatives like yourself have statistically high instances of low IQs

reading comprehension problems much?

You mean subsidies to companies like Solyndra?  Because I can’t think of many conservatives who were okay with that one, or any of Obama’s green jobs boondoggle investments.  

And I hate to burst your little hate bubble, but the rich actually pay more taxes than the poor and bear a disproportionately higher burden of all taxes.  

They could have found any of the following correlations but decided not to study these;
Correlation between white self hatred and liberalism.
Correlation between affiliation in the communist party in the 40′s and anti-Semitism.
Correlation between Islamic affiliation and racism, and anti-Semitism.
Correlation between minority affiliated liberalism and anti-white prejudice.
Etc, etc etc…

I was referring to any correlation that they found.

Since you apparently failed to comprehend, let me put it bluntly:  liberals lie when replying to inquiries about their prejudices.  They like to wear the mask of tolerance and acceptance, but only so long as the relevant group (blacks. women, etc.) knows its role, i.e., dutiful lackey mouthing liberal pieties.  If anyone from that group steps out of line, however, off comes the mask and on goes the white pointy hood.

“The fact that it doesn’t include every element that you consider germane doesn’t render their definition any less useful to their research”

No, but it does render their research useless, since it is, as you yourself admit, biased.  As I stated, this study tells me nothing about whether liberals or conservatives are more prejudiced.  However it, like most research of this type, tells me a lot about the prejudices of its authors.

Typically, the Left loves anything that works in their favor and dismisses it otherwise; IQ studies are an example. If black folks look dumb just ignore it, if white folks look dumb jump on board. Liberalism is noted for not having any consistent philosophy other than non-whites are always right about pretty much anything. Other than that, it’s whatever they mean when they point at it.

Hmmmm.

You have disqualified yourself from any serious comment on this study due to your irrational hatred of its subjects — the human race.

It is immoral and unconstitutional to single out people for different treatment under the law based on income. This is not a redistribution commune.

“And I hate to burst your little hate bubble”

You aren’t bursting my bubble.. because you’re incorrect :-/

Im not telling you how you think. Why would I? I dont know who you are nor do I care- You are nobody.

Im telling you what I know about the history of Progressivism- you would think by calling yourself one you’d at least take the time to understand what it means.

http://www.amazon.com/Woodrow-Liberalism-American-Intellectual-Culture/dp/0742515176/ref=pd_cp_b_0 

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself.

Also, Id love to hear your take as to WHY the term “progressive” died out in favor of another label, since you scoff at the notion that it was done based on the accumulated negative connotations that Progressivism acquired over the years. If you can refute that, I’d love to hear it…Im sure I’ll find your mental gymnastics reaching for an answer other than the truth to be quite amusing.

As an aside, the same thing happened with the term liberal, which is why you even think of calling yourself a progressive today. But dont take my word for it, ask Gawker and Salon.com: 

http://gawker.com/5585112/progressives-should-start-calling-themselves-liberals-again

http://www.salon.com/2008/11/21/liberals_2/ 

Perhaps if you disagree or deny the interchangeability of progressive/liberalism based on what has a better reputation at the time, you better take it up with those very liberal websites as well.

But honestly, I cant believe you are an apologist for eugenics! What is wrong with you?Calling it simply “prejudices of the times” is just deplorable.

Using that logic, would it be ok to dismiss anyone who actively campaigning for the death of Jews in Nazi Germany, because hey, it was “the prejudice of the times.” ? Of course not. 

There is a clear difference between being a simple bigot and doing what Sanger did, and you did yourself no service by defending her.

 I dont think most liberal democrats want to move away from capitalism. But to deny that the seeds of progessivism has been planted by socialists/marxists is to deny reality. 

I honestly feel sorry for you if you are attaching yourself to a movement (by calling yourself a progressive) but dont know what it once stood for and what its ultimate goals are. I think that is the case for most rank and file liberals such as yourself, which is why, like I said earlier, if Progressivism was open and honest about its ideals and where they want to take this country, it would lose a great deal of support.

The GOP heircarchy have known this for years and have shamelessly preyed on them.  Like sheep to the the slaughter house.

From the article:

“She also endorsed paying pensions to women of low intelligence who agreed to be sterilized.”

Umm, sounds like eugenics…

LOL I like how you are “getting bored” responding to me, yet write 12 paragraphs which took who-knows how long to respond. LOL classic douche move.

LOL. I on the other hand am really enjoying running circles around you in a public forum. Lets keep it going!

Do yourself a favor though and stop saying that “MOST” gene variants are good. You really sound like an absolute knuckle dragging moron when you keep on saying something that is so wildly preposterous.

http://www.philly.com/philly/health/topics/HealthDay652113_20111102_Gene_Variant_May_Be_Linked_to_Deadly_Lung_Fibrosis.html 

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Non-food/Disease/genetic_variant_linked_to_deadly_prostate_cancer_1701100855.html 

http://www.howtopreventheartdisease.com/faulty-gene-cause-heart-disease-to-millions.html 

http://www.worldhealth.net/news/study_finds_genetic_variants_linked_to_a/ 

http://www.topnews.in/health/3-new-faulty-genes-behind-deadly-skin-cancer-identified-213336 

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20111018/Two-genetic-variants-associated-with-increased-susceptibility-to-severe-dengue.aspx 

I mean seriously: How many links do I need to provide that illustrate how DEADLY some gene variants can be???

MY god you are thickheaded. 

Let me try this one last time. Take a deep breath, and read this nice and slow so you can understand it.

Liberalism was linked to a gene variant in a study. Yes?  Can we all agree on that? Good.

I think that study, with the use of the word “variant”, made some infer that liberalism was a disorder. Probably some blogs ran with it or whatever- I dont know. All I did was cite the study that, right or wrong, was the reference point for the quote. Otherwise, there is no flat out “liberalism is a mental disorder” study because liberalism goes by another medical term anyway: malignant narcissism, which already is a mental disorder. LOL.

Seriously though, I never said that Liberalism was a disorder- I made the point of making no definitive statements about it either way. The only person who was making definitive statements was you, with embarrassing results.
 
I also didnt say that all variants are disorders. How can you  misunderstand written words that much? I mean seriously…its not like you can mishear words…you have to work very hard to mangle what I’m saying as badly as you have…

Still dont get it? listen closely, and read slowly- read it twice if need be:

All I did was refer to this study as the previous frame of reference. I wasnt making an endorsement of the reference itself.

Is it that hard to understand, that someone can point out the existence of something without explicitly endorsing it?

Or maybe I am asking too much of you here to keep up with me. Its ok pal, keep trying, you’ll get there!

Sure she was, and your link says so. Here’s politifact’s quote:

Eugenics was once a wildly popular theory that the human race can be improved through better breeding and genetics. It drew together backers as diverse as President Theodore Roosevelt and black intellectual W.E.B. DuBois.At its best, the U.S. movement pushed for better prenatal care. At its worst, it enabled forced sterilization laws and let claims that blacks and immigrants were inferior to masquerade as science.Sanger welcomed some of the movement’s more notorious leaders onto the board of a predecessor to Planned Parenthood. She also endorsed paying pensions to women of low intelligence who agreed to be sterilized. 

Sure sounds like she was eugenicist to me. 

Her wikipedia page goes into greater detail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics 
EugenicsAs part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that they both sought to “assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.”[72] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing reproduction by those considered unfit. Sanger’s eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded.[73][74] In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the “undeniably feeble-minded” from procreating.[75] Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals.[76][77][78]

Ouch. I just eviscerated Verreauxii!! WOW are you wrong.

The only question is, why are you so wrong here? Are you just a simple idiot, or are you flat out lying?

correlation between you and lacking a penis.

al qaeda supports your view as well as saudi arabia and iran.

conservatives are stupid and racist.

umm….this is new somehow?

we all saw how conservatives acted when the president did what conservatives refused to do, which was take out bin laden.

they sided with al qaeda and attacked the commander in chief.

its not exactly news they’re stupid and racist. its why obama leads newt by double digits.

2012: the year conservatism dies.

Democrats See Minorities as Useful Idiots. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UObEdF_uhaw&feature=player_embedded

Fact-free and long-winded. At least you’re predictable.

Your silly notion about liberals’ “true intentions” — a preposterous conjuring up of fictional “Protocols of the Elders of Liberalism” — does no more than confirm that your feverish imagination, unrestrained by reality, has overcome whatever ability to reason you may have been born with.

And yes, you were telling me what I think.

So go pound sand.

What you “know” about progressivism would fit into a teacup. Probably one of those served to Alice by the Mad Hatter. The fact that Wilson was one of the intellectual fathers of what was popularly called progressivism at the time is unimportant in itself, except in that he certainly had a very high profile compared to most political scientists.

But those who understand history realize that political movements and people’s perceptions of the ideas that labels represent change over time. After all, there was a time when “Republican” stood for Union, and the willingness to die to protect it. Now, of course, Republicanism means wrecking America’s economy solely because the “wrong guy” is in the White House. When did Republicans morph from patriots into traitors?

On another issue that seems to have sent you ’round the bend, it’s not my place to defend those of Sanger’s ideas that were abhorrent. I haven’t asked you to do the same for Dick Cheney, have I? However, if you are unable to grasp the notion of normative behavior in a given historical period, I can see why you find it difficult to assemble any sensible understanding of Sanger’s career and instead depend upon fantasy.

And by the way: no moral person thought that Nazi eugenics policies were normative, so that canard is also nonsense.

“The seeds of progressivism” were planted by many hands. “Socialists/Marxists” (a weird, ahistorical concoction, but I’ll assume you meant something like ”Communists”) contributed to the streams that came together in American progressivism. So what. There is much deep thought and wisdom in the writings of Marx, Engels, and the American Communists, along with a much larger portion of crazy foolishness that history has proved to be horrific. But that’s only one of the influences on progressivism, most of the rest of which has come from all over the political spectrum.

But progressivism is not a movement, it’s not a political party, it’s not a cabal, and it doesn’t have a specific destination for America. Liberalism, which these days is used interchangeably with progressivism, wants to achieve a healthy balance between what people do for themselves, what self-selected groups do for their members, and what government should do for all.

And we’re perfectly happy for everyone to know that.

The problem is not so much the study but the interpretation that is inferred into it (the ludicrous assertion that “racism” is a form of “conservatism”.

Eugenics and Darwinism for example have already proven that there are more than enough progressive racists as well

Republicans see rural & poor white people as useful idiots.

Here is what is stupid….following a guy whose administration and congressional followers have run up the national debt to 15.2 trillion and ask for another 1.2 trillion, all in 3 years.      Following a guy who spends all his time campaigning instead of governing and whose policies have resulted in 29 states suing the federal government, with federal government suing several states and those states suing the feds in kind, over his policies.   A guy who talks about creating jobs but whose policies stop projects that would create jobs with private money, not even public money such as the XL Keystone pipeline, the new Boeing plant in SC, confiscation of wood from Gibson guitar on some ridiculous import charge.   A guy who has no energy policy but pretends to be on a path to energy independence, and wastes our tax dollars trying to pick winners in losers in the private sector.   And a guy whose administration and political party have spend 3 years blaming his predecessor  for everything that has failed in the last 3 years and now intends to blame republicans for everything going forward.  Nothing is ever his fault.      Following a guy that relies on class warfare and dividing the people to the point of outright hate, now that’s a stupid.  

Have you ever heard of the graduated income tax?

It’s *in* the Constitution.

this is just the kind of argument we hope Romney bet’s his run for the presidency on

 So you come here to type your crap and affirm your beliefs?

Unfortunately, we lived (not by choice) in Texas for several years.  The mentality seemed to be ” I do not know and I do not want to know”.  Even more amazing was that so many, many of the young college graduates when they could, would escape to the East and/or West Coast permanently.  Very telling.

It’s pretty dumb to devote this much writing to such a stupid premise. 

Don’t confuse them with facts, Lala.  They are convinced they have found the seminal study that proves we are all unredeemable crackers.  Ray Nagin for President!

You are as offensive as you are stupid.  My ancestors fought in every war since the civil war.  Don’t try to tell me to my face that they weren’t fighting for the stars and stripes.  Take your confederate flag and stick it.

Just some Blow Hard…,
I will answer that question.  Not many.  But is that due to genetic abnormalities or due to prejudices and preconceptions by the voting committee? 
****
I agree with you about the historical implications and I do not believe that black people are inferior to white people, in intelligence, or otherwise. I think there are many factors, including the ones you listed below, and the ones I listed here elsewhere, that factor into the Nobel Prizes, and inventions, etc.

It is the people on the Left here however, that are applying the same ugly stereotypes and prejudices to white, poor, religious, people in their comments about this study – disregarding any external factors that might contribute to the results – as you provided r.e african americans.

Being black doesn’t mean you are stupid, inferior, a criminal, or thug. And being white and conservative doesn’t mean you are racist, stupid, or privileged. 

People do sometimes make racist or insensitive comments about black people, but there are a plethora of nasty comments directed at conservatives or religious people, that are just as harmful, ugly, and bigoted.

70% of Black Democrats do not believe gay marriage should be lawful… but you think they will vote otherwise? Why?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/112807/Blacks-Conservative-Republicans-Some-Moral-Issues.aspx 

So who is your party going to run against him?  Or are you all still waiting for that white knight in shining armor?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/112807/Blacks-Conservative-Republicans-Some-Moral-Issues.aspx
70% polled said it was morally unacceptable. 

Glad you had a positive experience, but everything i have read says otherwise. Google homophobia in the black community, read articles from people like Don Lemon and others who came out, and what they said about the homophobia in the black community. Read about blacks on the down low and why.   

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2005-06-20/news/0506200132_1_bisexual-black-homophobia-black-men 

Obama discussed it briefly, Magic Johnson talked about it. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/12/24/magic-johnson-20-years-hiv-aids_n_1157963.html?just_reloaded=1 

I would think liberals are the ones with the low I.Q. since they, willingly, follow a redistributionist marxist off a cliff just to show they’re not prejudiced.  They don’t even seem to have a will to live.  I would call that much more moronic than conservatives who try to hold the nation together by pressuring government to live within their means.

And you score vastly lower than I do

The idea that the content of melanin in one’s skin is determinative of one’s IQ is belied by history. Not to mention, IQ tests are not that scientific (scores almost vary by 5 to 6 points in either direction, which is why honest clinician’s list an IQ score +/- 89) and have several cultural biases.

Oh, and even more important, “Mexican” is not a race. It’s a country. Ethnographically, Mexican are Caucasians….same as you, Cracker

I think he’s pointing out that you pretty hate all non-whites and calling nation’s people by perjoratives demonstrates how incredibly dumb you are

Lefty social scientists don’t belive in race. As Jared Diamond noted in his book The Third Chinpanzee, humans across all regions of the planet have genetic variation than chimps for opposite mountain valley. We all come from the estimated 10,000 to 25,000 people who existed after the almost extinction….the idea that fundamental IQ differences came after a mere 70,000 years of evolution is hysterical. Learn the difference between sexual selection and natural selection

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352461,00.html

And there you prove the study.

Thanks

WOW

Best post yet proving the study.

You have already proven the study over and over again.
move along

Great quote.
My favorite W.C. Fields quote

I love children,
 if they’re cooked properly.

hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe…….duh.

The lemmings are taking us over the cliff.  Bet on it.

So you go EEEW at Palin. . . What about Debbie Wasserman-Schultz?  You’d hit that, wouldn’t you? 

No, she does not. One wonders how she destroyed our relations with Italy over the years. We’re lucky they’re still in NATO

All true but none of it matters.  Obama has pizzazz.

Hey, Cecelia, maybe you could post something about blacks are dumber than whites…Sara’s got her toe in the water, and at least three others cons have posited the same thing. When I look at the comments, I think I know which team I’d rather be on.

Why are you such a racist?

That’s actually not at all what it says. It says SOCIAL conservatives and guess what, Democrats can be socially conservative, and a lot of them are in fact. 

You seem to be the one who has problems with reading comprehension. 

I share your feelings.  In ’65 we had to live in California.  Amazing hostility towards Texans out there, except they called us the Depression-era term “Okies.” I live in Austin now, and much of our growth is from people moving in from out of state.  Houston has a large international population and many people from other places, but it is just a big dirty city.  The best thing about it is the proximity to the Gulf.  It is amazing how much of the state is still barren and uninhabited.  No wonder the young people got out.  Nowadays, a lot of young people really like Austin, but my son and his good friends are all gone.  New York.  Seattle.  San Diego. I think your post says more about young people than it does about Texas.

*eyeroll*

the GOP loves the blacks, especially with bbq sauce….

I can’t believe how many keystrokes have been wasted on this thread.  The “topic” is ridiculous.

 Answer his question, fool.  You like to throw the cheap insults at conservatives. 

Idiocracy is happening, just look at the audience at these debates. They booed Romney because his father was born in Mexico!

All conservatives aren’t morons, but most morons are conservatives.

See, dont hate on Palin…its not a choice.  She cant help it.

You are not falling for that charade are you?  Those idiots whooping it up are all on the payroll.  If Newt paid you and I enough money, we’d be doing the same thing.

I WILL CONTINUE  TO REPEAT TO RESPOND TO YOUR STUPID DEDUCTION. If only your narcissism wasn’t blinding. 

“Liberalism was linked to a gene variant in a study. Yes?  Can we all agree on that? Good.

I think that study, with the use of the word “variant”, made some infer that liberalism was a disorder.”
No, it did NOT. That is your political opinion. An opinion that is not even supported by the scientific article you cite. You don’t seem to know the meaning of the word “variant.” eg. A Corvette C6 ZO6 is a variant of a Chevy Corvette. It’s the very same thing in science. Variance of genes promotes diversity and uniqueness in nature. That is by far good. It’s the precursor to natural selection. I have said this before. Hate repeating myself. 

I clicked on all your links and you still employ dubious argumentation. Pointing to a few examples of gene variance that have defects (from mutations) and lead to certain known DISEASES does not prove that liberalism is a mental disease. Yes…such genetic defects like you have mentioned are rare. Mutations are rare in general. Perhaps you should find out how many genes a human being has before making yourself look stupid. The majority of genetic variance is good. This is not my opinion. It is a fact. It’s the reason why there are very few individuals (eg. people with down’s syndrome) in a population that have these “defects.” 

“Seriously though, I never said that Liberalism was a disorder- I made the point of making no definitive statements about it either way.”
“I also didnt say that all variants are disorders. How can you  misunderstand written words that much? ”

Hahaha…lying pos. You did. Do I need to re-quote your words for you? Hear you go. 

“I think a gene variant is what some have labeled a disorder..Im not sure if thats exactly the case but any variance is by definition an abnormality.”
 

This is your damning statement. It’s the reason why I responded to you in the first place. I have already pointed out why the reasoning was so atrocious! You clearly infer that liberalism is a mental disorder. You should get some medical assistance for that selective amnesia or stop making stupid statements all together and giving them a scientific rubber stamp. 

“All I did was refer to this study as the previous frame of reference. I wasnt making an endorsement of the reference itself.”

No. You were using the study to support a specious claim made by an individual. You can’t run away from it now.
1. The scientific study cited is good.
2. The scientific study had absolutely NOTHING to do with the premise in question. 
3. You make a fool out of yourself by attributing said GOOD study to a flawed premise. That is the definition of intellectual dishonesty. 

Please, dig deeper. 

Case in point, ladies and gentlemen.  Conservatives always go for the conspiracy theory rather than dealing with the problem.

Look at the states with the most Conservatism.

“The problem with the public education system is less lousy teachers than lousy parents.”

I agree with you 100%

Then why are all your Conservative candidates demonizing and insulting Black Folks?

Black children have no work ethic
Blacks were better off during Slavery
Blacks would rather have food stamps than paychecks
Blacks want the money in white folks pockets
Blacks live on the Democratic Plantation
Blacks are brainwashed

Which is it? Are we stupid enough to support the race baiters on the GOP slate because we are “socially conservative”. I don’t think so. Why not? It’s not because Obama is Black it is because he is not them.

Stick it to the man

and he doesn’t even know how many states there are

you seemed to have forgotten nov 2010

Hmmm…why did you leave out the last paragraph? 

“In contrast with eugenicists who advocated euthanasia for the unfit,[note 9] Sanger wrote, “we [do not] believe that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding.”[79] Similarly, Sanger denounced the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program.[74] In addition, Sanger believed the responsibility for birth control should remain in the hands of able-minded individual parents rather than the state, and that self-determining motherhood was the only unshakable foundation for racial betterment.”

Question is, why are you always a dishonest troll? 

BTW, there are medical doctors today who encourage the same thing Margaret Sanger did…by advising and counseling patient couples who carry certain genes, or very poor financial background from having kids. The pill, a contraceptive very popular with women today of all stripes can be credited to her work. 

probably the same eyeroll the local consulate staff has as more and more Italians file complaints about the right wing nut. They probably call you Alaric behind your back, as no one has profaned Italy this much since the sack of Rome in 410.

/tongue in cheek

probably the same eyeroll the local consulate staff has as more and more Italians file complaints about the right wing nut. They probably call you Alaric behind your back, as no one has profaned Italy this much since the sack of Rome in 410.

/tongue in cheek

To dontdoubtme
“Here’s a hint: you cant. Vacuous always is used in reference to being stupid, therefore yes, to say “intellectually vacuous” is to be redundant.”

You truly are an idiot.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rhetoric  (Read 3b.)

Expand your vocabulary.

Wilson wasn’t a liberal.  He was a progressive and a good Southern boy.  Super’s just admitting that like Glenn Beck, he’s still fighting thr battles of 90 years ago.

The Sanger thing is an embarrassment to serious people.  It’s “present-ism” at its worst.

I don’t think they will vote on that issue. I don’t believe that issue will be a deciding factor on who they vote for. I have no studies to back it up other than the fact they do vote heavily for democrats. It wasn’t a issue in 2004.

So now you insult me by calling me a dipshit and a “chick.” Not intelligent debate tactics.

Apparently the truth hurts.

 Just politics, dude.  Boy are you a Pollyanna.

Thanks for the links, interesting reading.

However, I live my life through interacting with people of all races, religions, genders and sexual orientation and that is what I base my perspective from on this issue, not polls.

The sheer proliferation of polls and surveys covering the same topics in recent years is mind boggling. Pick any topic (politics, social issues, sports, cars, household products, pets, music, etc…) and you will find that a poll or survey has been conducted numerous times on ANY given topic with varying results. Some are scientific, some are not, some are based on gender, some are based on age, some are based on political ideologies, some are based on race and on and on. Go to any website and there is a poll or survey for you to take. It is very easy to find a poll or survey to bolster your particular point of view. If someone points to a poll or survey that you don’t like, just search until you do find one that backs up your point of view.

The point I am making here is that I don’t care that 70% polled said it was morally unacceptable. I find it morally acceptable and in the end that is what really matters, isn’t it. If I were to base my morality compass on polls and surveys of what other people think, then I lose my ability to think for myself. Having that ability to objectively assess other people’s opinions and ideas on matters like this defines who we are as individuals. I don’t care to be part of that swarm mentality.

It is just so much fun watching how people with low IQ’s react to Science and facts. Best Wing nut strategies 1) mock smart ’elites’ 2) Change the subject by finding an invented bogey man – in this case MSNBC.

All posts on this thread should surely address one question – do social Conservatives has less relative intelligence.

But the tragic irony is that the less smart you are the more difficult it is to figure this out.

Conservatives call anything that doesn’t mesh with their world view ‘politics’ like global warming, almost all sociology, most science, basically all facts.

You can’t deny, the Red-est states have the dumbest people.

You would do it for free.

This study is by no means revelatory.It is verification that so-called conservatives have a high capacity for racism,prejudice and compartmentalization when confronted with complex issues. One, the degree of either or thinking is astounding. For them there is no middle ground.No shades of grey in experience.It makes them vulnerable to manipulation and emotionalism.Edmund Burke the so called father of conservatism would not have risked shutting the government down for a feeble debt ceiling argument. He would have compromised for a larger gain to make the Society more just.I doubt any of the participants know who Burke is,let alone read his works.Furthermore,how could any poor person vote for a modern day Republican? Their code words like liberty ,freedom, big government sound haughty and lofty,but the content of those words are in the eyes of the beholder and the beholder does not mean a poor person any good.I

I am symphathetic to the group in the study.Those who are 55-65 whose JOBS Republicans shifted overseas may never work again at jobs that pay well. Obama didn’t do that Bush did that he and his Republican House and Senate cohorts. This blue collar group has always been suspicious of the more educated and wary of educated ethnics and BLACKS in particular.This is the tea party group,
glad to be white even though Other whites use them as pawns.

What you have written demonstrates you are not thinking.

Fist of vulgar, dangerous dimwittedness.

How is this a revelation? This character profile goes back millennia.

Somebody tell me some bad news so I can stop laughing at this “study”

So you rather have a country that only agrees with you and no opposition to anything? Dont ever question authority is what you think! …just follow and believe our great messiah and only praise him.  You rather call People who question things… stupid and racist and hateful things to try to shut them down and make up lies to pass as facts! 

Sounds like you should be living in North Korea or Iran right now they need more people like yourself!

Many believe that having a child out of wedlock is “stupid.”

In American, according to US Census Dept figures,

71% of of African-American kids are born to unwed mothers.
50% of Hisipanic kids are born to unwed mothers.
27% of white kids are born to unwed mothers.

So a higher percentage of which group contains the ’most stupid’ people?

But wait, there are more whites in America, so that 27% could be a larger number than each of the other two groups, but percentage wise….

“Studies and stats”…you can make them say almost whatever you want them to say if you “use” them the “right” way. 

Wait till someone does a study and discovers the “liberal” and the “conservative” gene and “finds” that being on the left or right is an innate characteristic. 

We would then need another study to find out how once a lib can become conservative or a conservative can change and become a lib.  

What kind of genes would a moderate have?  Another study!

Of course all these studies would have to be federally funded!

Actually would not your sentence be “more correct” if it read: “The correct spelling is,” vice “would be”?

Do you mean: “See, don’t hate Palin; it’s not a choice.  She can’t help it.”

LIBTARDS Study is about as reliable as getting your news from Mediate and MSNBC.Only a libtard would give a libtard study any chance of being Legit.

Indeed they do go together.  They walk hand in hand.  That is why repugs and GOP idiots are the classical type who are quick to judge, quick to anger and…….very slow to understand. 

Indeed….you must be one of those low IQ conservatives as I’m sure the truth probably hurts you pretty badly.

The finding correlates with the fact that 61% of Americans are illiterate.

And then is the “converse” true ie: high IQ, liberal jibberish, and snobbery go foot and mouth?

I wonder how much of OUR money Obama gave these clown-”scientists” to come up with this incredibly ridiculous conclusion.
Maybe they were “global-warming scientists” at one time?
LMAO!!

A study by psychologists?  There are a few things that I’ve discovered in my time on this planet.

1. There has never been a conservative psychologist.

2. All psychologists think they are the smartest people in the room.

3. All psychologist are mentally unstable.

I’m sure that this is an objective and well conceived study.

My low IQ and I, started out as liberals, gravitated to conservatism, and finally found each other,  Since then, we’ve thrown ideology in the shit can where it belongs.

I thought IQ tests were invalid due to being racist?

Study… yes it is. Fact… um… no.

Libtards Allowed themselves to be sold into the Globull Warming carbon-trading scheme with doctored science and a love for the secular religion Gaia. If ever there was a quotient group as an example of low IQ, this one is it.

What that Democrats agree with them? al Queda and lslam agree in the practice of Eugenics, Not allowing the substandard, infidel, to breed, But made it a practice to turn their sIave into eunuchs.

Oh yes SHE was a ‘progressive’…do you EVER read?

I think you’re confusing us with the Tea baggin’ party. You’d be miffed to with those things dangling in your face all day. But then again, maybe not. LMAO

 
This does give interesting context to the study that showed people who watch Fox News are more ignorant than those who watch no news at all.  Perhaps it’s not the source of the news, but the brains of the people who watch it? 

Sarah, I agree 100%

Tim I agree but technically you are incorrect.  Mexicans are descendants of Inca, Aztec, various native American tribes and some Spanish colonists.  

The post I saw where Sara makes mention of African-Americans was one where she nakes logical connections that challenged people who defended the study. SHE doesn’t buy it’s conclusions, THEY do.

It is a fact that African-Americans are far more socially conservative than white liberals.

If you embrace this study as saying anything relevant about your political opponents, you must embrace it for what it infers about other socially conservative groups too.

That’s not the consequence of Sara’s argument. It’s the consequence of those who tout the study.

Mexican is not a race

I stole this Wikipedia for brevity’s sake

Reflecting especially the Latin American population, which has origins in all the continents and many ancestries,[7] Hispanic/Latino Americans are very racially diverse, and as a result form an ethnic category, rather than a race.[5][8][9][10] The choice of name is associated with location: Hispanic and Latino Americans who reside in the eastern United States tend to prefer the term Hispanic, whereas those in the west usually prefer Latino

That’s why they’re Bushmen…..

I’ll go ahead and dispute the characterization of African-Americans as socially conservative, just because you people think AA’s don’t like gays. There’s more to be an annoying Bible thumping Republican Santourm supporter than being bigoted against the gays

Abortion doesn’t poll well with African-Americans either. Prayer in school does.

Santorum isn’t the point now is he? The point is that if you’re idiotic enough to take this study at face value then you must apply its conclusions to ALL social conservatives to one degree or another.

Don’t accuse Sarainitaly of being racist because she logically made that point.

When liberal institutions gets to define what is prejudice then you can be assured that conservative beliefs will be considered prejudicial in nature. Many liberal groups are exceedingly prejudice in their beliefs but are not recognized as being prejudicial in nature.  I wonder how this study would be if EVERY prejudice was included. Many liberal groups actually claim it is impossible for them to be prejudice no matter how they believe..

And then they get mad cause Union workers make more than them…..That’s why we join the Union…..Maybe if I spell it out, they’ll get it.

The people who vote in the Right to Work states.

Perhaps you didn’t read his comment (and the many vile one which preceded it). People with an ounce of decency would consider my response temperate.

Which category are you in?

Your post is filled with prejudicial beliefs not supported by facts. You are a clear example as to why this study is faulty.  You declare certain beliefs as prejudicial WITHOUT evidence to support your position. FACT the most violent acts of racial unrest in the 20th century  happened in BLUE LIBERAL states.

Said she put her toe in the water. Didn’t call her anything.

Still, Cecelia, are in the word to defend the actual racists here?

no surprise here. Social conservatism is the morality of superstitious cavemen. 

yes of course comparing rigid political views to persecuted minorities. *yawn*

My lord… It’s posts like this one of yours that ought to show anyone the tenuousness of the study.

No, Sara didn’t even come close to putting “her foot in the water”, for all the reasons I’ve already iterated.

As for your last sentence..question… whatever it is…I’ve never defended any “actual racists”, so come back when you can get an argument, rather than some dishonest and lame insinuation.

why bring up africans who have almost no connection african americans here in the u.s.? What are you stupid? 

But, in that statement you also forget that a primary element of AA social conservatism is religion. Just how many AA’s classify themselves as atheist? Typically it’s the DLPs that are not in favor of religion, prayer, church, faith…

So there’s there’s religious element too. What else do you think you can do to try and frame AA’s in a way the suits your world view that’s not exactly true?

All AA/NA groups require some sort of spirituality, though they do not require a specific denomination. timb116 would not know what the truth was, even if it were a dog chewing on his leg.

hey dumbass, why don’t you read up on some history? black churches were centers of rebellion against the institution of slavery and against segregation. they helped disseminate between the racist propaganda of southern aristocrats and the truth. So yes i tend to give them a pass on the religious front mostly because for the past 200 something years their religion has been the only means of educating themselves beyond what biggoted morons such as yourself have desired. 

They’re not just “political views” they’re moral views.

And in 2012, people all around the world and of every color still have them. They are comparable.

Nietzschean needs your help, cici

Indeed… Which is the point in comparing the DLPs which typically contain a preference to the absence of a religious/spiritual component…

It’s not conservatism making Black folks typically religious is it?

G.K. Chesterton already tried.

Nice….Nietzsche doesn’t need your help, but Nietzschean and Todd Malone and Charles Murray do.

A Chesterton reference on Mediaite….if it weren’t for all the other morons, I’d think this place was coming together nicely

Coming from a guy who thinks all religion is socially conservative? Go ahead, benny, tell us about Reverend Wright

Well, it might help if you’d look in the mirror.

And you seem to have forgotten November 2006 and November 2008.

So, you are trying to make the case that Wright’s Church and theology represents a majority, is that what you are trying to convey? To use as a case to defend the idea that spiritually minded people are not conservative?

Is that really the counter-argument you wish to present?

Do you want me to pull the numbers, or would you prefer to?

Im pretty sure Michele Bachman said the same thing about China during a debate.

Im pretty sure Michele Bachman said the same thing about China during a debate.

And provide adequate healthcare for our families :)

My only response to this story is…DUH! Ya think? Do you think intelligent, rational and high-functioning people would act in ways the crackers and assorted other bottom-feeders exhibit? I don’t think so! It takes an ignorant person to believe in and spew forth the kind of poisonous bigotry (read EXTREMIST CONSERVATISM) and vitriol propagated and spewed by these bigoted, self-righteous Bible-thumping ignoramuses (read REPUBLICANS, any flavor). The only real problem I have with them these days is that they’re VOCAL and DANGEROUS. Put them in charge and it’s back to the Middle Ages, kids! Just neanderthals, really. So as I said, no study producing such results could surprise me less.

I read on all the con sites that Black Liberation Theology is all the rage. Go back and ask Glenn Beck and get back to us.

ain’t you sweet

Absolutely well-known facts.  Your GOP in action.

Well, hey, I didn’t imply that YOU were actively engaged in making talking points for racists, now did I.

Numbers?

And answer this question, just how many who consider themselves saved before this new theology came around no longer consider themselves saved any longer because not everyone else is?

a good response would have had some kind of provable facts that refuted what I had asserted. I am not here to teach you debate 101…

I believe that it is Republicans that are introducing anti-women and minority suppressing voting laws, not Liberals.

Numbers?

And answer this question, just how many who consider themselves saved before this new theology came around no longer consider themselves saved any longer because not everyone else is?

a good response would have had some kind of provable facts that refuted what I had asserted. I am not here to teach you debate 101…

I believe that it is Republicans that are introducing anti-women and minority suppressing voting laws, not Liberals.

Heck, I just wanted you to look around and see the people who were on the side you picked.

We got room for you on the good guy team if you want to get away from the racists and morons. And, as you and Sara like to point out, we got one of the those big tents, where the President can say he’s against marriage equality and still earn my vote, despite how loathsome I find that position.

After all, when I was a kid, I was a huge Reagan fan. I changed sides when I saw who was standing around. You can too

so clever, it needed to be posted twice.

Listen, when you’ve got an argument and something to say other than just drivel and dishonest egregious insinuation, we’ll talk about good and bad.

Until then, all anyone can tell you is to buy a mirror.

Fallacies present in this one comment:

Appeal to populism
Petitio Principii
Fallacy of Composition
Fallacy of Division
False Dilemma
False Attribution
Psychologist’s Fallacy
Faulty Generalization

And that’s just a few to start…

Ah, again… Something you’ll need to do is provide meaningful comments that support you positions. This kind of thing only reasserts you have little to offer in the way of a substantive contribution…

Ah, again… Something you’ll need to do is provide meaningful comments that support you positions. This kind of thing only reasserts you have little to offer in the way of a substantive contribution…

uh, wow, is that a no to helping Todd and Nitzschean?

oh, Cici, look, it’s a troll who follows me around the internet. He’s on your team too.

You must be so proud

Taking the time to get the man’s name right would go a long way towards building a little credibility, don’t you think?

A thoughtful response that actually refuted some of my assertions would go a long way towards building credibility, don’t you think?

again with the repeated comment?

by the way, troll, if you were a part of this conversation, you might know that the Nietzschean and Todd I referred to were racist douchebags on this thread.

You and your BFF/sock puppet are different douchebag trolls.

It is irresponsible journalism to make such assertions without
referencing the studies specifically enough that we can look at them and
try to determine whether or not they are legitimate. This is nothing
more than propaganda.

But, you didn’t get the name right. Do you need remedial training in reading as well as spelling?

Again, you ought to really think about trying to make a coherent and valid point once in a while.

Take it up with Disqus…

Oh, I’m taking quite a few things up with Disqus. Like how you and your troll army harasses people. Probably won’t get me anywhere, but just the idea of getting your Blaze army banned is worth it

This study vastly understated the obvious.

Yep, you go right ahead. Of course Disqus defers that authority to the sites on which the comment appears. It would be more efficient to go directly to them…

And remember, when you complain to show all the times I have pointed out where your arguments are weak or non-existent. And all the insults you hurl when I do so…

The pesky thing about fallacies and logic is that neither is politically biased.

But, anytime you want to start using some it’ll be there with full access…

Good luck with that ignorance. What are you going to due file suit, after writing it in Crayon?

Tinbrain, you of all people, expect Discus to support your foul language, one sided direct attacks of Glenn, or anyone who supports him?
You conveniently forget they have your history.

You wouldn’t know an honest argument if it bit you on the toe. I see my threat brought three sock puppets? Nice

Babs, care to apologize for the whole Gingrich thing now?

Well, let’s see, an honest argument, eh?

Since the only categories for argument are sound/unsound, cogent/weak, and valid/invalid you’re right. I wouldn’t know an honest argument. You finally got one right. I think…

But wait, you indicated I wouldn’t know an honest argument if it bit me on the toe. Excusing the metaphor about the toe because I understand the sentiment in spirit, you are under the impression there is such a thing as an honest argument, aren’t you?

You really need to spend a little time studying.

And you know, you can start presenting counter-arguments anytime you like on any of the topics we have been discussing. If you think you have a case then you need to start making it…

They gave the source of the study and gave a link to the site as well.  Did you miss their link to the site of LiveScience, their link to the study?  It’s in blue so you shouldn’t have trouble finding it.  Follow that link and it will take you to the site.  If you want more details you will have to contact the person who conducted the study that is also available.

Hello, barbara? Anyone manning this sock puppet?

What Gingrich thing? The one were she was within one percentage point of her claim and you were within 2% of your claim? I.E. she was better and closer than you?

No your idiocy brought comments from two other people. And I was already replying to you BEFORE you idiocy about going to DisQus. Go right ahead, let us know how it works out for you.

We discuss things? I was unaware you had discussions. You insinuate yourself in other people’s conversations. You are a troll, benny. A troll who is apparently very aware of Disqus commenting policy. Wonder why?

You think your post is comedic? At least you’re addressing me courteously by name.

Why would I want to apologize, when I’m correct.
You are wrong once again.

Why would I want to apologize, when I’m correct.
You are wrong once again.

TinBrain, we have discussions, you have juvenile attacks.

Just a cursory look at the total percentages you gave adds up to more than 100%.  It seems to appear evident that the percentages cited are the percent rate of each race.  So your conclusion is incorrect and based on false data. You just helped prove that the study in this article is correct.

Thanks Todd.

The study was conducted in Canada.

Ah, so now knowing something is equivalent to what? Awareness? And if we haven’t had “discussion” what exactly is this very exchange supposed to be?

Troll, eh?

Finding flaws in a comment or series of comments is troll like?

Whatever makes you feel better…

Your post this time includes the fallacy of equivocation.

I guess you missed yesterday where I linked to the poll that proved you to be within one percentage point?

No, Barbara, newt’s approval rating is less than 30%, like I said. You mis-read the comment. No biggie. Just acknowledge it and stop lying about it

I thought it was a known fact that social conservatives appeal to the lowest common denominator.  I guess now we have the proof, although I don’t feel any different. :(

Except she is RIGHT: “Among Republicans, Romney has a 58-to-32 favorable-to-unfavorable rating. Gingrich’s is 55-to-34 percent.” http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/romney-gingrich-favorable-ratings-nearly-same/333441
With the entire electorate he is at 29%.

Now you prove to everyone you can not read also?

Stay stupid, TinBrain.

You are your own worst enemy.

You sound just like Rush, the most powerful man in the GOP.  You simplify, then make broad statements that make you puff up, but when you disect it?  It is only conjecture; divisive and grandiose.  Typically, James sounds like a doofus.  He is noted for being a racist apologist

Yes, I was studying after my post.

And didn’t deem TinBrain worthy of reply.

This fellow/chick has posted numerous examples of his/her inability to read carefully and with normal comprehension. It’s really pointless to keep trying. In the end he/she just wants to be left alone to think whatever it is that he/she thinks…

You don’t have to be like them. I said his approval rating was 27 percent amongst the electorate. You objected that it’s 56%. You were wrong about that. It’s okay to admit it

It’s called getting old and greedy.  Who cares if you vote for someone who will take rights away from your daughter,or send your son to die in a bs war, as long as you get you tax cut.  Greed is the exception to the rule.

He/she likes to argue for arguments sake? And not for any benefit of knowledge….I can see that point.

Which is why I abandoned the “discussion” with Onery…

You insist on belaboring a point of contention, when clearly you know you are incorrect.

Why?

No, she did not you lying sack of trash. She wrote:

As always, your facts are skewed. In a recent poll, Newt was at 56% favorability.

She made not implication as to it being with the enitre Electorate.

I see the merits in this, it’s pointless.

But he’s a Lawyer!

I’ve read all his posts, he definitely is not a lawyer.
He has no skills,logic,or enough education to form a coherent sentence, let alone a legal brief.

He writes his briefs in Crayon and the Paralegals type them up for him, then the real lawyers argue them.

Because you are wrong. I said “Please nominate this man. he polls at 27% amongst the electorate as whole.”

You said he polls at 56%. I produced one poll which proves my point (he polled at 29%) and you claim you were not wrong.

You are just like So there, who refused to admit he was wrong about my student status and the other one who refused to admit he was wrong on Robert Owen and New Harmony, Indiana.

For god’s sake, if you can’t admit to being wrong and acknowledging it, then just stop. Why does your troll posse deny making mistakes. We all make them.

Just so weird.

LMAO
OMG! That made me laugh….hahahaha

Hey stupid, he does poll at 55% among REPUBLICANS, the only ones that can vote for him until November.

TinBrain is the lawyer, he has aspirations of higher learning, ask him the question, Sally.

This is why I could not believe TinBrain was debating this point, Todd.
He knows nothing of the process?

So, the question is did the polls reflect the same demographic, or at least similar enough? At this point you need to determine if you’re talking apples and apples.

That is if you wish to really figure out who was right.

But he says he’s a lawyer then he says he’s not a Lawyer, then he says he’s a Lawyer again. Sounds like he’s a little mixed up.

He’s something, but what?

Since only Republicans can cast a vote in most states in a Primary or a Caucus, timb116′s reference to ELECTORATE totals is not really relevant until after the nominating conventions. And the General Election campaigning starts. The polls will change a lot by then. Only 19 states allow some sort of open Primaries.

Full of fecal matter?

I’ve read his past posts. He seems a little mixed up to me and if he really was a Lawyer you’d think he would have some sort of arguing skills but I fail to see any real strategies except maybe boring people to death with rhetoric.

I was quoting my Conservative pundits placing in our race. I am correct.
You hurt yourself with your own statements,in debate with SoThere.

I always admit if I am incorrect. Then refresh my memory, and read again to gain insight.
Can you say you do the same.

I was quoting my Conservative pundits placing in our race. I am correct.
You hurt yourself with your own statements,in debate with SoThere.

I always admit if I am incorrect. Then refresh my memory, and read again to gain insight.
Can you say you do the same.

I found the debate interesting, and followed it as well.
He appeared not to stay on point, lost his train of thought all through his commentary.
Then he would resort to base attacks….as if it gave weight to his opinion.
I believe it destroyed his arguments, don’t you, Sally?

Did I hear poo?

Baloney.

He does have a problem with staying on topic.

Knackwurst?

Salami. :)

I’ll see your salami and raise you one spiced loaf…

What relevance do you have here?

There is no “figuring out.” I said the electorate as a whole.” She said I was wrong, it’s 56%. I proved it was not. There is no relativism about demographics. She responded to my point; she does not get to redefine what I meant.

Either Gingrich’s approval rating is in the 20′s amongst “the electorate as a whole” or it is 56% amongst “the electorate as a whole.” She mis-read the comment and all she needed to do is say so OR say nothing and go away. Instead, she is asserting she is correct. It’s what the Blaze’s troll army does.

I’ll call your one spiced loaf and raise you two slices of Swiss cheese. ;)

I think the validity to the study was just confirmed by your question.  Had you had the “IQ” you would have known that “Ontario” is in Canada and the scientists were “Canadian”.

You proved nothing, you linked to no polls. I hate to tell you this you moronic lawyer wannabe, THE ELECTORATE does not matter in the primaries, only those that are REGISTERED REPUBLICANS matter, and Gingrich is poling at 55% of REPUBLICANS.

So it was your ignorant behind that read the polls wrong.

Teabaggers confirm my beliefs every time I come here and when I am here it’s certainly not to read your crap.

I am not part of Glenn’s site. I rarely if ever go there to read.
You are incorrect once again.

TinBrain will provide the lettuce for brains.

Braunsswagger

When he posts, facts are not germane to his debate.

I got four all beef ballparks and a pair two extra fluffy hotdogs buns…

He is alive but his brain isn’t kickin. Exhibit A for the study.

Your last comment on his site was earlier today. Your Disqus profile says this

Glenn Beck
1461 Comments
That’s more than twice as many comments on all other sites combined. I’m unsure what “I am not part of” means when you’ve dropped almost 1500 comments there.

Did the scientists at Ontario do a study on this too, or is this your own observation from a white kid going to a school in a good neighborhood and a black kid going to an innercity school?
Give me two kids – one black and one white- who have had the same education in the same school, same parental involvement,, and there will NOT be any difference in their IQ tests.

And if she did it from the Dashboard, she was never on his website was she?

You stay stupid though timb116.

If you have the Beer? I’m in.

I read what you post from Discus, because I follow you.

Oiyevey! As long as it’s blessed you on!!!

Oiyevey, LOL

any chance you could stop? You know, since you don’t like what I write and I don’t like what you write, maybe we could part ways and you can take the new sock puppet “truck driver” with you?

Add me to the list.

Oh, you’re on the list alright…

I have no idea who or what you are talking about.
As for the former? It’s still a free Republic.

…

Please, the percents cited are out of each demographic.  I.e., 71% of 100% of African-American children are born to unwed mothers.

You need to take more than a “cursory look,” or at least try to understand how percentages work.  It’s 71% out of 100% in one demo; 50% out of 100% in the Hispanic demographic; 27% out of 100% of white children.  Three different demographics each containing 100%.

M_Baker, perhaps someone should explaine how percentages based on three different groups works.  Each group has a 100% total. 

Simply amazing! 

I won’t elaborate on what “you just helped prove.”

I am not sure I want to respond to this…

Well, you do know that Fresh Prince went to an Ivy League school in Beverly Hills. He wasn’t too bright but that was a comedy. Or do you? It’s not important…..doesn’t need a reply.

What does that have to do with my comment?
Obama gives money to ALL countries.

Weak response to getting called out for a lack of common knowledge.

Wow now thats funny! Answer is da 4 again if I was debating my answer would be 3 strikes and your out!Smiles……..

Man, can someone, anyone actually show some kind of accuracy on how much Mr. Obama ran up the National Debt?  Seriously doubt it.  I have yet to see the same amount written twice on any news page, any political page (yes, demo and repub), congressional bologna.  Obviously, people are using numbers to anger anyone that will listen.  Sorry but you can thank Bush for much of that debt with his damn tax breaks for the rich.  Remember, Bush had a surplus when he took office.  So stop laying all this debt on Obama.

Obama has not been running for office his 3 years.  He has been TRYING to pass anything he could with the crippled idiotic Congress we now have.  I, too am against the Keystone pipeline as it is NOT going to employee as many people as the repubs swear to.  It is a bad thing to have run through our country and a great danger to all that live near it, especially if a terrorist decides to use it against us.  Class warfare started under bush when he gave all those tax breaks to the rich and his buddies.  If you want to run down anyone, get the damn facts first. Bush handed out money to his moron friends under the idea of war!  Obama tried to start jobs by funding private enterprise and some failed.  Big deal.  Many companies have failed the last 10 years.  You say Obama doesn’t do anything else but blame Bush?  Well, what the hell are you doing.  You are blaming the entire debt on Obama and believe me, most is from your friend Georgie Bush.  Try looking up facts that are not posted by Faux news!

And many now know what a great mistake it was to elect republican to a congress that can’t pass Sh#t!  We wasted so much time giving repubs a chance to undo the damages done with their tax breaks and big business but NO, ALL THEY COULD SAY IS NO!!!

GREAT ANSWER!  However, those public employees that fill out birth certificate have no idea of how many races we have.  My husband was RACE: INDIAN.  In fact he was a native but also white.  His kids are WHITE.  I have seen this on driver’s license for race, Indian.  I have many hispanic friends and their drivers license says RACE: MEXICAN.  I am old, very old and have fought against this type of bigotry since the 60′s and it has gotten me no place.  But then, to be fair, right now I live in WA state.  I called the AKC to get a breeders name and she gave me a number in Maine.  Again, I told her I lived in WASHINGTON STATE, again she said I lived near Maine.  Had to call that breeder to get the name of a breeder in WA state!. I lived in New Mexico.  I tried to book a ticket back to New Mexico and was told I couldn’t book a flight out of the US through her.  Honest, tried to explain NEW MEXICO WAS in the US but got no where with her.  Stupid is Lack of an education. No it has nothing to do with skin color!

Which are concidered Caucasion!

Oh Gosh Darn!  And to think I used to be considered one of the “intelligent” members of the Liberal Community!  I voted Carter, loved Clinton, never cared for Bush, and then Obama came along, lol!  After having served under Presidents Nixon thru Reagan, having the highest Respect for all of  them, no matter what party, I always follow a persons Accomplishments and Record.  As I said, I voted for Carter,, really liked him, and I voted for Reagan to get rid of Carter, when your worthless, your worthless and need to be replaced.  In 2008, for the best of me, I could not get myself to vote for someone who’s only accomplishment was reading a Dummy Board well!  Obama had no Record, none!  Accomplishments?  What?  Where?  Nothing!  So I voted McCain because at least McCain had served in our Military and had been in politics a while.  I was called Racist, even though I would love to see Allen West or Herman Cain as our CIC, yea, I am real Racist.  I guess I am now considered a Right Winger, since I refuse to back this ignorant Fool called Obama.  Let the Left take the title for the most “intelligent” party, who gives a rats butt, but the Right have dibs on “Common Sense” which is esential in a Leader and for Life.  I really think the Democratic Party should change it’s name to Raging Looney Tune Legion of Demons Party, fits them so much better!

sid_id, The point I am making here is that I don’t care that 70% polled said it was morally unacceptable. 
***
I don’t either, but it was an answer to a question about black people being conservative on several issues, gay rights being one of them. 

“I find it morally acceptable and in the end that is what really matters, isn’t it. ”

Yes. And if someone finds it morally unacceptable, in the end, isn’t that what really matter, to them? But, no, they are called names, too, and attacked for their beliefs, as well. 

Many on the Left love to point fingers at the Right and call them homophobes for opposing gay marriage, meanwhile it is also opposed by a majority of Black (and I thing Hispanic) people as well. There are also many many Conservatives who have nothing against gay people, just oppose gay marriage.

FWIW- I used to support gay marriage, but now I believe that Gov. should be out of marriage all together, and just be the intermediate for civil contracts between two people, gay or straight. If people want to have a *wedding* ceremony, they can do it in their church or on the beach, performed by their choice of church, priest, minister, or friend how got certified on the internet. That way, we are all equal under the law (and have legal rights), and people make their wedding vows between them, and their *God* or witnesses, or whatever. 

sid_id, jesuswashomeless.org
One more thing, regarding your comments about polls, and beliefs, etc. – They are kind of ironic in a thread that’s all about attacking Social Conservatives, that is calling them dumb and racist….

I guess you didn’t see this comment:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/study-suggests-low-iq-social-conservatism-and-prejudice-go-hand-in-hand/#comment-423684348

I suppose you have no issue with all the comments on here calling white conservatives (and religious people) dumb, do you? 

Bigotry is bigotry dude, regardless of color. 

“There’s more to be an annoying Bible thumping Republican Santourm supporter than being bigoted against the gays” - 

Black people are more religious than white people, so again, your attacks are also insulting to black people. 

Like Cecilia said, “If you embrace this study as saying anything relevant about your political opponents, you must embrace it for what it infers about other socially conservative groups too.

That’s not the consequence of Sara’s argument. It’s the consequence of those who tout the study.”

sarainitalyCollapseJust some Blow Hard…, I will answer that question.  Not many.  But is that due to genetic abnormalities or due to prejudices and preconceptions by the voting committee? ****I agree with you about the historical implications and I do not believe that black people are inferior to white people, in intelligence, or otherwise. I think there are many factors, including the ones you listed below, and the ones I listed here elsewhere, that factor into the Nobel Prizes, and inventions, etc.It is the people on the Left here however, that are applying the same ugly stereotypes and prejudices to white, poor, religious, people in their comments about this study – disregarding any external factors that might contribute to the results – as you provided r.e african americans.Being black doesn’t mean you are stupid, inferior, a criminal, or thug. And being white and conservative doesn’t mean you are racist, stupid, or privileged. People do sometimes make racist or insensitive comments about black people, but there are a plethora of nasty comments directed at conservatives or religious people, that are just as harmful, ugly, and bigoted.Edit
20 hours agoin reply to NietzscheanF

Just some Blow Hard…, Tales told by an idiot, f

Yes, but I didn’t ask the question about black people being conservative on several issues, gay rights being one of them. So, I was confused as to why you would feel compelled to respond to my comment with an answer to a question I didn’t ask.

Furthermore, if you oppose gay marriage, you oppose gay people.

political views aren’t religious views. And Goebbels used his faulty science to prove theories along racial lines, saying these people were born badly or were not human. So no, they aren’t comparable. Nice try. 

also all this anger is coming from the same right wing that for years has talked about liberalism being a mental disorder. 

damn. you were part of the study, right?

which means what? that you can’t keep your eye on the ball? neither sanger nor wilson are the topic here….maybe if someone pins the topic to your shirt?

seriously? “…their real plans for the future of the country will never win on the battlefield of ideas” really? is that why every church from east coast to west is losing congregants? get a grip, or people will start to think you were part of this study.

Oh, baloney. Political views are generally informed by one’s morality, and in the case of social conservatives moral mores are generally informed by religious belief.

The attempt to stigmatized these views with that sort of junk science is every bit an attempt to dehumanize certain segments of population as Goebbels’ theories were.

Frankly, any one who purports to care about science and research should be asking a million questions about this study. Doesn’t it occur to you that traditional beliefs are generally “conventional wisdeom” in a sense. That generally they are what’s come about out some biological or environmental necessity. Those conditions may change and they may not, thus mitigating this “wisdom” OR further enshrining it.

It stands to reason that people with average IQ and lower would default to tradition for no other reason than it IS conventional wisdom rather than something they glean as being the best way through their observations of human nature/ the world.

There’s a mountain of variables here.

Shouldn’t a sentiment meant only to gig and to marginalize your voice, make YOU less likely to embrace such tripe when you see it in another form?

Study Suggests Low IQ, Social Conservatism, And Prejudice Go Hand In Hand

What the study suggest to me is that the dumb f’n liberal ought to look at his own prejudices.

Better study:  what undergrad degree gets people into being a 1%’er.  Top:  Biology.   

gallup/yahoo news http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-1-earners-majored-163026283.html

You are proving the point. Kudos

Oh, baloney. Political views are generally informed by one’s morality, and in the case of social conservatives moral mores are generally informed by religious belief. 

And enforcing those religious beliefs on others? where does that fall on the political spectrum? 

 Doesn’t it occur to you that traditional beliefs are generally “conventional wisdeom” in a sense. That generally they are what’s come about out some biological or environmental necessity. Those conditions may change and they may not, thus mitigating this “wisdom” OR further enshrining it. 

Oh Good lord, “traditional beliefs” vary from culture to culture so to say it’s a matter of common sense is the biggest crock of bs i’ve ever heard. 

The bad news is: you’re an obnoxious, ignorant loser. The good news is: you’re mortal and won’t be around forever.

Nope. Incorrect. They do not sheerly vary.

If you vote GOP and make less than $300k a year, you are a fool.  The GOP is interested in one thing only, to make sure the extremely wealthy get wealthier.  They use a veneer of religion, patriotism, and mob manipulation to get the ignorant masses to vote for them.  Over 99% of Republican voters are clueless pawns.

The most notable thing about the top 10 or so degrees listed is that you make very little money with an undergraduate degree, and thus are forced to get an advance degree or MBA.  I went to a university that is consistently ranked top 10 in undergrad biology…most of the people I know who got that degree made about 1.5x minimum wage spending all day as glorified tech in biotech companies.  They all quit within 4 years to get advanced degrees.   The easiest way to make money is an MBA from a top 30 university.  Of course, that doesn’t mean you won’t be a miserable pathetic wanker.

Expat: speaking of fact free and long winded, you take the time to write a huge reply, yet I asked you specific questions which you ignored. Impressive..!

But when your assertions were directly challenged you didnt have an answer. I asked you to explain specifically for the change between progressive/liberal labels since you discounted my explanation, and all that comes out of you is that labels change over time. Really? oh ok. Nice specificity pal. LOL. So any entire political movement gets a label change for no particular reason…? Please. You bore me with your marshmallow fluff-like arguments. 

In particular your whole Sanger defense and your argument of her being nuanced and to judge her for the body of her career is code for “yeah, she believed in some horrible things, but since she ended up being part of what I consider the greater good, I am ok with it.”

Juke and jive all you want, but you are an eugenics apologist. I agree with you that no moral person SHOULD  have gone along with the nazis, yet the reality is that a whole lot of moral people did. Whether it was out of fear, or the hatred of jews being properly fomented, the nazis would have never be able to accomplish what they did if they didnt convince the majority of seemingly decent, moral people to go along with it. 

All you did was take shots at me, but in the end you didnt present anything. In fact you are embarrassingly off in claiming that socialism/marxism has no historical connection. Both terms are rooted from what Marx and Engels termed “scientific socialism” in the 1800s, and both in fact are variations of a similar political philosophy, and as a reference point they are virtually interchangeable.

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

I have no doubt that marxist theories are quite elegant to read on paper. Its the practical application of its theories that is the problem, since it has yet to succeed. Or is there a marxist country that didnt turn into a tyrannical oppressive regime that I dont know about? Unless you count the smurfs, I dont think so. LOL.

But hey, I am happy to give you credit where credit is due. You are not shy about hiding your love of Marx. I applaud you for that! In fact my original point was I think more progressives should be honest and admit the true things they stand for.. 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx 

For about 20 years at least, the number of people self identified as conservative outnumber self identified liberals 2-1. I’m sure its much longer than that based on how consistent it is, but the survey only goes back to 1992.

Then if you consider that 20% and realize how concentrated they are, you’d realize the gigantic demographic hurdle progressives still have to overcome in winning this country over. Propaganda can only do so much, but to air out their true anti-capitalist foundational beliefs would be political suicide. Clearly that is enough motive to mask their true intentions dont you think?

and when I say “they”, Im not talking about some mythical cabal that you can make fun of, because of course that doesnt exist- are you being obtuse or is that your clever way of dissembling?

Who I’m talking about are those who matter- professional political/community organizers, of which the left has a virtual monopoly on. In other words, people who’s literal job it is to strive for transformative change though “social justice” and other similarly innocuously labeled causes.
In reality the progressive movement is mostly grass root activists with a few wealthy political backers, and of course progressivism is deeply embedded within organized labor.  

I am not talking about the democrat dupes that mostly dont know what they are in de-facto support of, or the rank and file union workers who I really feel sorry for, as their money is being stolen from them in support of causes they likely wouldnt support. 

But for you to say that Progressivism has no particular direction for this country shows how steeped in ignorance you really are. If you truly believe that Progressivism “doesnt have a specific destination for America” then I have some oceanfront property Id like to sell you in Nebraska.

Remember that study that said blacks had lower IQs?  This one is about as valid as that…  Correlational studies are the lowest of the low when it comes to deriving any meaning.

Nope. Incorrect. They do not sheerly vary.

Ummm, yes they do. Consider the emphasis in some cultures on polgamy, acceptance of homosexual behavior, differences in deities and/or worship of said deity (ie: places of worship, ritual sacrifice), arranged marriage, the age of consent, pacifism vs. self defense or militant behavior, what is moral behavior (ie: in China moral behavior is fitting into society while ours is based on independence and self reliance), and finally the place of religion in state affairs. 

yes of course, we have to provide a list of successful person of african descent, while you don’t have to provide any evidence that their intelligence is tied to their being of african descent. 

It might be accepted that a man can have many wives, it is not accepted that a man can take any woman he wishes.

Sodomy has been accepted as a practice in some cultures only in the sense of celebrating the subjugation and humbling of the lesser by the superior.

The impulse behind an emphasis on community is the same impulse behind the one that animates the philosophy of individuality over conformity– a desire for security and perpetuation.

There has never been a society that condoned and celebrated disloyalty and treason for the sake of disloyalty and treason.

There has never been a society that celebrated the annexation of the property of another person for no other reason than that one could.

Even human sacrifice had its motivation in the facilitating the corporate good.

The expression of sensibilities may be different, but moral imperatives are NOT sheerly different from society to society. To say otherwise is not experience and it’s not anthropology.

Of course, this is not news.  Just speak with your average conservative…..these people don’t know how to think, they rely on FOX to get them through the issues.  Also, research the educational level of the majority of folks who voted for McCain.  

It might be accepted that a man can have many wives, it is not accepted that a man can take any woman he wishes.

actually if you look at the extended rights of leaders in ancient society you’ll see things like Droit du seigner in which a ruler could sleep with any virgin bride on her wedding night before the groom was able to. 

 Sodomy has been accepted as a practice in some cultures only in the sense of celebrating the subjugation and humbling of the lesser by the superior. 

 i suggest you look up homosexuality in eastern cultures specifically in ancient china in which love poems were written by one man about another. 

 There has never been a society that condoned and celebrated disloyalty and treason for the sake of disloyalty and treason. 

There has never been a society that celebrated the annexation of the property of another person for no other reason than that one could.

Even human sacrifice had its motivation in the facilitating the corporate good.

The expression of sensibilities may be different, but moral imperatives are NOT sheerly different from society to society. To say otherwise is not experience and it’s not anthropology.

By this logic everyone believes in traditional values because they all have reasons behind their actions. 

But….FACTUAL…..Lambchop.

How have you managed to twist my statement into an argument that homosexuality never existed before this era and that that there is no such thing as potentates?

your statement was that homosexuality was only practiced in submission to others. I demonstrated that many people in ancient cultures also practiced it out of love not out of your weird submission idea. my biggest problem with your statements here is that you seem to think the values practiced by “social conservatives” are universal values. I demonstrated that this is not true. They’re learned values, not common sense values. 

Lets hope that a hundred years from now, no one will be silly enough to argue that because there were homosexuals loving each other 1865, Victorians were all for it.

“common sense values” are learned values.

Lets hope that a hundred years from now, no one will be silly enough to argue that because there were homosexuals loving each other 1865, Victorians were all for it.  

Actually a good portion of ancient chinese emperors engaged in homosexual practices. 

“common sense values” are learned values.

And they’re very clearly not the same every where.  

That set of statistics is totally without merit because it assumes that the people first got a degree, then became part of the top 1%. I submit that most of the biology majors were born into the top 1% and chose to study what interested them.
I am confident that the route to the top 1% is through business studies, especially finance, though it seems smart to start with engineering, then business at the master’s level. You know it as an MBA.
Even Art History and Criticism, and Area Ethnic and Civilization studies have some 1%-ers. There is no way those studies can make a poor person rich.
Examples: I have read that Brook Shields, the actress who once was very popular, has an advanced degree in French Literature of a past century. Is that how she got rich? No way!
I know a woman who has a masters in Art History and Criticism, and she can’t get a job. 

Exactly, and when you look at the list in the link, you see that Biology is mentioned three different times, with “General Biology” at the bottom of the list.

So being financially successful and honest w/ better family life is correlated with low IQ (Conservative)? While having sex with the same gender, being poor, and using illegal drugs (liberal) is correlated with high IQ? Interesting study…

yea john, and keep on telling yourself that you’re so smart the rest of us just can’t figure you out. like einstein and darwin and da vinci.

you da one dude!

Talk about science catching up with everyone else. You can’t be anti intellectual on the exhale and be offended when people point out you’re anti intellectual on the inhale

To call Wilson socialist is a dishonest, he presided over a very large nationalisation scheme that could be called prototype socialism, but then immediately got rid of it over the objection of his cabinet. You can say it was for political reasons or whatever but this is a time when socialism wasn’t the bogeyman it is today and could have gotten him reelected.

If you don’t call racists out when they say racist things, they say racist things. Its like telling someone theirs something between their teeth, they may not realize its there but its there. They can argue about how you’re trying to call them ugly or whatever, its all noise, they still have something between their teeth.

and I’m supposed to be bowled over that?
“THOSE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS ARE CONSERVATIVE TOO!!” This tautology is big enough to drive a buick through.

What stats???

 Read Machiavelli.  Intelligence is over-rated.

Judging the conservative commenters on Mediaite, this study appears to be 100% accurate

Living in a trailer park thinking you’re rich while you’re married to your cousin doesn’t mean you’re financially successful, honest, and have better family values.

If both studies are correct it explains Allen West.

People like you validate the study.

Cool stor bro.

Thanks for proving the study to be true.

You’re spinning.

Thans for validating he results of the study.

Your mom says hi.

Sid-Id – Yes, but I didn’t ask the question about black people being conservative on several issues, gay rights being one of them. So, I was confused as to why you would feel compelled to respond to my comment with an answer to a question I didn’t ask.

***

I wasn’t replying to you, I was replying to Just Some Blowhard. You replied to me, and I responded. 

“Furthermore, if you oppose gay marriage, you oppose gay people.”

So, are you saying that 70% of the black people are bigots? 

” yea, I am real Racist.  I guess I am now considered a Right Winger, since I refuse to back this ignorant Fool called Obama. .”

Well unless you’ve got a more convincing argument for saying this about the black guy who graduated magna cum laude of Harvard Law School, it does seem to be the best explanation.

I will leave that determination of bigots to somebody else to decide.

Here is the way i see it:

You said that in a poll, “70% of black people find gay marriage morally unacceptable”.
So, I look to that statement and ask myself — What is it that they find morally unacceptable — Is it marriage?  Traditonally, marriage has always been defined between a man and a woman, presumed to be straight. So it is highly unlikely that they find a “traditional” marriage morally unacceptable. Now, if a man/man or woman/woman wants to get married, presumption being they are gay, then it becomes a “gay” marriage and then they find that it is morally unacceptable. . So what changed here that caused them to believe that a “gay” marriage becomes morally unacceptable. The conclusion that I draw is that it is “gay people”. If you don’t oppose marriage in the “traditional” sense but yet you oppose “gay” marriage, then it stands to follow that you oppose “gay people”.  

nope

Do you mean the one from the 1880′s? Based on cranial capacity?