|
|
edited my rage out 
|
On May 01 2012 20:21 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 19:58 AcuWill wrote:
Having an economic discussion with people that think FDR pulled the US out of the Great Depression is completely useless. The data actually shows FDR extended it and it only resolved when interventions were removed. I won't bother trying to post a simple link for it, but you have a line of research to work from to educate yourself. Either way, as you will see below, it is irrelevant to the thesis being supplied that an interventionist economy provides growth and stability.
This is because nobody has bothered to look at WHY we had a Great Depression. It was the FEDERAL RESERVES INTERVENTIONIST POLICIES THAT CAUSED IT.
So even if it were true that interventionist economics pulled the country out of the Great Depression (which it didn't), citing interventionist policies for providing a stable, growing, healthy economy with ANY discussion of the Great Depression is hardly foundation for the arguement that interventionsionist economic policies cause said economic stability and growth as the interventions CAUSED the worst economic situation during the 20th century it in the first place. The Fed did not cause the Great Depression. The cause of the Great Depression was the burst of a massive bubble in stock prices, which led to the crash at the NYSE. The Fed's policy of keeping the interest rates high prolonged the depression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_great_depressionThe Great Depression was 2 recessions in a row, the first started in 1929 and was caused by the stock market crash, and the recovery was caused by FDR's public spending and policies like deposit insurance and ending the gold standard. The second started in 1937 and was caused by FDR trying to balance the budget, and the recovery from this was caused by World War II: the largest fiscal stimulus in history. So FDR did fix it, then stuffed it up, then WWII came.
You are aware that at no time in the 1930s did unemployment ever dip below 14.6%. (caveat it was ~9% in 1930..), and for the majority of the years involved it was above 20%. If you call that a fix, I don't want anything to do with your disastrous economics and value-system.
|
|
|
On May 02 2012 01:09 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 01:06 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 23:16 Jon Huntsman wrote:On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. Many agree with you on a lof stuff already... On the other side of the political spectrum. You seem to think changing the Republican base's views on climate change, the existence of God, homophobia and probably a dozen other core issues is going to be easier than changing the one thing about the Democrats you dislike (in this case, unions), while they agree with you on the other 90% of things. It's like saying you're willing to enter into a gay relationship because you would rather have sex with men and be willing to put up with the fact that you dislike penises, facial hear, testostrone, etc. In the hope that one day you will develop homosexual feelings, just because you dislike the fact that women get periods but are otherwise 90% perfectly attractive to you. Not really. There is a fundamental disconnect there. I have two good friends running for state assembly as Democrats, and there is not a chance in hell I'd vote for either one of them. Democrats want too much say in the personal lives of individuals. They just do it in ways that are more subtle than the bible thumping sect of Republicans. Look, you can argue with me that I'm a closet Democrat all you want... it's just not true. I know where I stand and I know why I stand there. Yes, I'm absolutely a moderate Republican. I'm proud of being a moderate. But I'm not a Democrat. Like what? Sounds more like the Republicans. No you can't have an abortion, because it's against God. No you gays can't get married, because it's very against God.
Oh, I don't know, banning smoking, banning salty / sugary foods and drinks, most still support War on Drugs, what you can't or can purchase (mandatory auto-insurance, mandatory health insurance, ridiculous taxes on so-called 'sin' items), what sort of business you can or can't open, zoning and building laws, all sorts of laws that tell you what you can or can't do with your own property, what sort of gun or explosives you can or can't own especially stringent on banning all equalizing self-defense, etc. etc.
I could go on for a few more paragraphs if you like. I'd be happy to show you how when the State takes over economic sectors they destroy personal choice and liberty.
|
On May 02 2012 03:27 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 01:09 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 02 2012 01:06 BluePanther wrote:On May 01 2012 23:16 Jon Huntsman wrote:On May 01 2012 21:45 BluePanther wrote:I'm sorry, but I don't know anyone in the next generation of likely candidates for political office around me who feel that way. Many agree with me on a lot of stuff, particularly the social stuff. I think the our generation of politicians will draw the line around economic/government theory and foreign relations rather than social issues. Many agree with you on a lof stuff already... On the other side of the political spectrum. You seem to think changing the Republican base's views on climate change, the existence of God, homophobia and probably a dozen other core issues is going to be easier than changing the one thing about the Democrats you dislike (in this case, unions), while they agree with you on the other 90% of things. It's like saying you're willing to enter into a gay relationship because you would rather have sex with men and be willing to put up with the fact that you dislike penises, facial hear, testostrone, etc. In the hope that one day you will develop homosexual feelings, just because you dislike the fact that women get periods but are otherwise 90% perfectly attractive to you. Not really. There is a fundamental disconnect there. I have two good friends running for state assembly as Democrats, and there is not a chance in hell I'd vote for either one of them. Democrats want too much say in the personal lives of individuals. They just do it in ways that are more subtle than the bible thumping sect of Republicans. Look, you can argue with me that I'm a closet Democrat all you want... it's just not true. I know where I stand and I know why I stand there. Yes, I'm absolutely a moderate Republican. I'm proud of being a moderate. But I'm not a Democrat. Like what? Sounds more like the Republicans. No you can't have an abortion, because it's against God. No you gays can't get married, because it's very against God. Oh, I don't know, banning smoking, banning salty / sugary foods and drinks, most still support War on Drugs, what you can't or can purchase (mandatory auto-insurance, mandatory health insurance, ridiculous taxes on so-called 'sin' items), what sort of business you can or can't open, zoning and building laws, all sorts of laws that tell you what you can or can't do with your own property, what sort of gun or explosives you can or can't own especially stringent on banning all equalizing self-defense, etc. etc. I could go on for a few more paragraphs if you like. I'd be happy to show you how when the State takes over economic sectors they destroy personal choice and liberty.
I think the difference between the things you bring up and gay marriage/abortion is that there are good reasons behind banning some of these things.
Smoking - nobody is banning it, but putting a large tax on a highly addictive substance seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Salty / sugary foods - Again, very addictive. Nobody wants to ban them but we've being putting taxes on things like that forever.
Mandatory Insurance - Insurance is socialized whether you like it or not. its the nature of the product. Would you prefer that people drive around without auto insurance? What happens when theres an accident and the offender has no money? somebody will end up paying for it in the long run. We make it mandatory so that the RIGHT person is paying for it from the start.
Zoning and building laws - My mother is a structural Engineer. If there weren't proper zoning laws and building codes, things would fall down and people would die. You can't trust people to build it right because they will cheap out and things will fall down.
Gun Laws - I live in the Bronx, and most murders happen with guns brought in from out of state. a LOT of murders happen with guns brought in from another state. I'm sorry, but you simply can't trust people with guns. its not about self-defense - we have the police for that.
I understand that you want to protect personal choice and Liberty, but you have to draw a line somewhere. If I made the personal choice to buy a huge forest and burn it to the ground for fun, should that be allowed?
But then you want to tell gay people that they can't get married? for what good reason? its apples and oranges and banannas and plums we're talking about. separate issues...
I'm sot saying we should turn into Soviet Russia and socialize everything, but if you allow everything, its anarchy
|
I think Wegendi would be fine with the label "anarchist" so long as its used properly as in, favors a stateless/voluntary society.
To your larger point, I agree in principle. It's one thing to restrict activities in which an unwilling third party may be harmed. It's another thing to restrict activities in which nobody is harmed but you find it distasteful. (although I'd argue that once you accept statism, if you believe life begins at birth then abortion would be classified as something that harms an unwilling third party. I don't, but I think that issue is less obvious than marriage equality.)
|
On May 02 2012 04:55 Signet wrote:
I think Wegendi would be fine with the label "anarchist" so long as its used properly as in, favors a stateless/voluntary society.
To your larger point, I agree in principle. It's one thing to restrict activities in which an unwilling third party may be harmed. It's another thing to restrict activities in which nobody is harmed but you find it distasteful. (although I'd argue that once you accept statism, if you believe life begins at birth then abortion would be classified as something that harms an unwilling third party. I don't, but I think that issue is less obvious than marriage equality.)
The problem is, once the state undertakes the task of taking care of every citizen, then EVERY action falls under the scope of harming a third party. If individuals were the only ones paying for their health care, then there would be no justification for forced seat belt laws. Once the government pays for you when your head hits the pavement, then they can force anything on you.
I like the distinction of third party harm, but in practice that distinction is almost non-existent. Eventually the role and scope of the federal government extends to every action and inaction because there is no true limiting principle so long as we believe in positive rights.
|
Remember way back in the old primary thread and the discussion about Romney having to go so far right he would be stuck in that position and unablew to seem moderate, it has begun it seems:
Richard Grenell, a former George W. Bush administration official and presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney's controversial choice for national security spokesman, is leaving the campaign less than two weeks after his appointment.
The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin, who broke the news Tuesday, suggested that the openly gay Grenell likely resigned because of a "full-court press by anti-gay conservatives." Grenell confirmed his resignation in a statement to Rubin:
I have decided to resign from the Romney campaign as the Foreign Policy and National Security Spokesman. While I welcomed the challenge to confront President Obama’s foreign policy failures and weak leadership on the world stage, my ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign. I want to thank Governor Romney for his belief in me and my abilities and his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team.
The Huffington Post recently reported that days after joining the campaign and coming under fire for numerous sexist and impolitic statements he had made about prominent women and members of the media, Grenell scrubbed over 800 tweets from his Twitter feed and deleted his personal website.
Rubin didn't mention Grenell's controversial statements in her post about his resignation.
Hours after Grenell's resignation was announced, competing stories emerged as to what had caused it. The initial report suggested that pressure from social conservatives had forced Romney's hand. But that same report, written by the Post's Rubin, later clarified that aides to Romney had urged Grenell to stay. He left, the piece added, in part because he hadn't come on board at a time when foreign policy issues were dominating the campaign.
Source
|
On May 02 2012 04:36 TheFish7 wrote:
I think the difference between the things you bring up and gay marriage/abortion is that there are good reasons behind banning some of these things.
I understand that you want to protect personal choice and Liberty, but you have to draw a line somewhere. If I made the personal choice to buy a huge forest and burn it to the ground for fun, should that be allowed?
But then you want to tell gay people that they can't get married? for what good reason? its apples and oranges and banannas and plums we're talking about. separate issues...
I'm sot saying we should turn into Soviet Russia and socialize everything, but if you allow everything, its anarchy
And I think you brought up the problem. How much is too much, and what should be offlimits? It is my opinion that all of these things should be off-limits at a high level of government. If a small town wants to ban sugar, fine. But there is no reason a federal government should be doing so. It is my belief that republicanism only works if you're deferential to levels of government closer to the people.
|
On May 01 2012 10:10 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 10:02 Josealtron wrote:On May 01 2012 09:55 Smat wrote:On May 01 2012 09:37 zachMEISTER wrote:On May 01 2012 09:21 Chytilova wrote:On May 01 2012 07:37 kwizach wrote:Very good article in the Washington Post summing up what most people already know: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/0/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.htmlWe have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential. It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it. Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side.. The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes. Actually the Democratic party typically wins the votes of the least educated people. (they also win the most educated people) Republicans do better among people with roughly average intelligence. Granted, "average" is still appallingly stupid. For example, I'd wager Palin's IQ is between 95 and 105.
Who the fuck cares about what you guess somebody's IQ is? Seriously, I'm willing to bet the moon has a core of molten monterey jack. That doesn't mean I'm right, or even anywhere close to right.
|
On May 01 2012 10:10 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 10:02 Josealtron wrote:On May 01 2012 09:55 Smat wrote:On May 01 2012 09:37 zachMEISTER wrote:On May 01 2012 09:21 Chytilova wrote:On May 01 2012 07:37 kwizach wrote:Very good article in the Washington Post summing up what most people already know: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/0/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.htmlWe have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential. It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it. Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side.. The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes. Actually the Democratic party typically wins the votes of the least educated people. (they also win the most educated people) Republicans do better among people with roughly average intelligence. .
This is probably true. The poor vote overwhelmingly for democrats because they see more benefits in social programs. There is a reason Dems attempt to portray republicans as aristocratic heirs and cutthroat capitalists.
|
So how is Mitt short for Willard? Is it like a weird rule in English where you switch the L with a T and turn the W upside down? Just like Witt is short for Millard?
|
On May 02 2012 11:29 Gummy wrote:
So how is Mitt short for Willard? Is it like a weird rule in English where you switch the L with a T and turn the W upside down? Just like Witt is short for Millard?
Mitt is his middle name.
|
On May 02 2012 11:30 mrKamiya wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 11:29 Gummy wrote:
So how is Mitt short for Willard? Is it like a weird rule in English where you switch the L with a T and turn the W upside down? Just like Witt is short for Millard? Mitt is his middle name.
Oh I see. This is why I don't vote. -____-
|
On May 02 2012 09:28 Wolvmatt. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 10:10 Signet wrote:On May 01 2012 10:02 Josealtron wrote:On May 01 2012 09:55 Smat wrote:On May 01 2012 09:37 zachMEISTER wrote:On May 01 2012 09:21 Chytilova wrote:On May 01 2012 07:37 kwizach wrote:Very good article in the Washington Post summing up what most people already know: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/0/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.htmlWe have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential. It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it. Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side.. The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes. Actually the Democratic party typically wins the votes of the least educated people. (they also win the most educated people) Republicans do better among people with roughly average intelligence. Granted, "average" is still appallingly stupid. For example, I'd wager Palin's IQ is between 95 and 105. Who the fuck cares about what you guess somebody's IQ is? Seriously, I'm willing to bet the moon has a core of molten monterey jack. That doesn't mean I'm right, or even anywhere close to right.
Just because someone is academically educated does not necessarily mean they are intelligent. Most Republican voters have done pretty well for themselves financially because they have entrepreneural minds, whereas a lot of Democratic voters who are academics at university would never know how to make money out in the real world.
|
I am not so sure about less intelligent people voting for democrats. I don't think you can make a definitive link between poverty and intelligence, correct me if you can link me something reputable with any significant correlation. From my understanding the most important indicator of the chance of someone being poor is if their parents were poor, not if they were unintelligent.
|
On May 02 2012 11:49 Jon Huntsman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 09:28 Wolvmatt. wrote:On May 01 2012 10:10 Signet wrote:On May 01 2012 10:02 Josealtron wrote:On May 01 2012 09:55 Smat wrote:On May 01 2012 09:37 zachMEISTER wrote:On May 01 2012 09:21 Chytilova wrote:On May 01 2012 07:37 kwizach wrote:Very good article in the Washington Post summing up what most people already know: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/0/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.htmlWe have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Well I think that's probably one of the best Washington Post articles I've seen. Underlying this article shows one of the weakness of the US Constitution. It necessitates a two-party system which can under certain conditions (like we are seeing today) be extremely detrimental. Of all the things going wrong in this country I'm being convinced more and more that a multi-party system is really essential. It's funny how that works huh?. Washington always warned us about falling into a battle of the 2-party system. Stating it was ultimately a bad move, and we should steer away from it. Who cares if the Republican party has shifted to the right. If America doesn't want it then they won't get the votes and the party will change to get votes. If the GOP is so fucking crazy and such an outlier then why do people still vote for them? Answer: because they disagree with the other side regardless of how centrist and compromising that side believes itself to be. Maybe if we all just pull together and vote for democrats 5 elections in a row things will get better right? We should just become a one party state and follow the compromising "good" side.. The reason the GOP gets votes is that they are much better at appealing to stupid people than Democrats are. Most Americans don't research all the facts/historical evidence for the views and claims that are spouted out by the candidates, they just vote for whoever their friends/family/church votes for, or for whoever "seems" better. If all Americans actually researched history and data when it comes to taxation and other economic policy and most of the other issues, then the GOP would almost never win elections. But because they don't, they're able to convince 50% of Americans that their economic policies would be good for anyone except the rich, and so they get votes. Actually the Democratic party typically wins the votes of the least educated people. (they also win the most educated people) Republicans do better among people with roughly average intelligence. Granted, "average" is still appallingly stupid. For example, I'd wager Palin's IQ is between 95 and 105. Who the fuck cares about what you guess somebody's IQ is? Seriously, I'm willing to bet the moon has a core of molten monterey jack. That doesn't mean I'm right, or even anywhere close to right. Just because someone is academically educated does not necessarily mean they are intelligent. Most Republican voters have done pretty well for themselves financially because they have entrepreneural minds, whereas a lot of Democratic voters who are academics at university would never know how to make money out in the real world.
Oh are you John Huntsman? I was really pulling for you and your campaign. Too bad it didn't work out this election cycle 
|
Granted, "average" is still appallingly stupid.
"Average" = "appallingly stupid" is an inaccurate conceit based on stereotypes and, well, conceit.
|
On May 02 2012 11:50 Livelovedie wrote:
I am not so sure about less intelligent people voting for democrats. I don't think you can make a definitive link between poverty and intelligence, correct me if you can link me something reputable with any significant correlation. From my understanding the most important indicator of the chance of someone being poor is if their parents were poor, not if they were unintelligent.
Except intelligence is also inherited as well. Is it just that their parents were poor, or their parents just passed the stupid gene along which is the reason they are poor? Correlation or Causation? Probably both, tbh.
|
On May 02 2012 11:49 Jon Huntsman wrote:
Just because someone is academically educated does not necessarily mean they are intelligent. Most Republican voters have done pretty well for themselves financially because they have entrepreneural minds, whereas a lot of Democratic voters who are academics at university would never know how to make money out in the real world.
That's just not true. People get jobs teaching at Universities because they have the resume for it. I see no reason why they wouldn't just do the same in the private sector.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
