Originally posted by SeventhSeal

Originally posted by KennibleLecter
I find this very interesting.

Liberals just might be more intelligent... and better educated.... but I don't know a one of them with any common sense.

Really? Anti war isn't common sense?

Well you'd think it would be.... except all of the liberals I know, (and I know a lot of liberals) are awful quiet about us killing people in 5 countries now.

And that, my friend, reeks of hypocrisy.

OP's username..........The Revenant:

revenant: definition; a visible ghost or animal corpse that was believed to return from the grave to terrorize the living;
How appropriate his thread is.
Booooo!

Anybody scared yet??

Hi there
Sorry to say but what you write is total bull "@#
If you pay me enough cash I can find all kind of so called: "Highhly Educated" and of course- "Independent Experts", who will prove whatever stupid ideas I pay them to prove
thats all...
Or wait a minute...
What is your definition of the Conservarives and -"Liberals"?? Is that according to american political arena main parties/players? or that of the european arena?? or maybe that of the politological sciencies definitions ( differs from school to school but usually- more accurate)

...and take this its quote from your source:

"It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others. In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs. Liberals usually support such social welfare programs and higher taxes to finance them, and conservatives usually oppose them."

What we see here is cumulation of the semi-truths and pseudo-scientific language (actually reducing all aspects of the human society live to the lowest basics leads us astray...because biology is not the bottomline- one can go even lower- Phisics and the subatomic one)

We know that there are seweral ways to use that "private resource" mentioned in the article (its not my invention alas): the best one is to use someones own money for their own needs, because normal person knows hers budget, needs etc.

And the lowest- the less efficient one is to use someone else money (or if you prefere- "private resources" extracted by the taxes etc) for still- someones else needs...

...somewhere in-between there lurking are that so-called- "Liberal" bureaucrats and politicians...
as mentioned in the Article they reveal some signs... no its not he real inteligence but maybe cunning??
So the smart girls and boys are there so they can (accidentally for sure ) stuff also their pockets and the pockets of their "genetically relatet others"...
Thats the purest Darwinism at work

I did get a kick out of this thread. Some defensive folks posting away!!!

I'm curious to know where Libertarians would stack up, according to this research. Any guesses?

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Obama is not a liberal, he is a conservative democrat...actually far more conservative than Bill Clinton overall (whom was also a conservative).
I am actually not even sure who the last liberal POTUS was...perhaps kennedy. Before that, you must go back quite a ways to FDR

That's gonna come as a HUGE shock to most in the Democratic Party. John Kennedy wouldn't even recognize the Democratic Party, it's become so left leaning.

explain in what way?

Obama is WAY to the right of his base, hence the dissatisfaction.

I am interested to hear your assertion quantified a bit.

That you think Obama is conservative makes me giggle. I'm glad that you are dissatisfied with his "liberal" credentials. Please don't vote for the man again.....he LIED to you. He's not one of you, vote him out.

Obama was touted as a Democrat of "Change" Please name one core conservative ideal that Obama supports.
Low Taxes? Strong Defense? Right to Life? Gay Marriage? Small Government? Deregulation? Gun Control? Support of Israel? The importance of self-reliance instead of reliance on the government to solve problems? Opposition to illegal immigration? Let's hear you rip into his "Conservative" credentials. LOL

I didn't vote for the man, so to me its up to those who voted for him to tell me how he has failed you as a "liberal President".

Intelligence is not wisdom: the two are not even remotely related. Keep the intelligence. Wisdom is far more preferred. I see little wisdom in this thread. In fact to tell you the truth I ignored it for a while, then felt I should at least point out what may have already have been pointed out. This thread seems to me to be inflamed. I see no wisdom in it, and probably should not have even posted in it. Let the liberals have their intelligence: It is not wisdom.

Originally posted by SeventhSeal

Originally posted by KennibleLecter
I find this very interesting.

Liberals just might be more intelligent... and better educated.... but I don't know a one of them with any common sense.

Really? Anti war isn't common sense?

Stating Anti-war propaganda then CONSISTENTLY VOTING FOR WAR is counter to common sense. And both sides do that.

Originally posted by SecretFace
From all these general traits, can we define the intellect of a person? No. The ideal political persuasion is somewhere in the center and I think you'll find that it is those people who are the most intelligent, but I have no basis of fact to place this on, just as the OP has none but an opinion from a propaganda machine!

The problem is that the center moves. My dad's views really haven't changed that much since he was a young adult--in fact while he's still a Registered Republican, the only way hie's moved is perhaps a smidge more towards a Liberal viewpoint. (And this is not because he's closed-minded. He's far more open-minded than the everyday people I run into.)

But when you look at his "place" in the Republican Party, he's gone from being a Centrist to almost can't-live-with-the-party conservative without changing enough to warrant that far a jump sideways. That is a huge ammount of ground to cover in order to be a "Centrist".

Conclusion: Political parties change as they age far faster than your own political beliefs. Trying to stay centrist in this type of stiuation is not a good societal reality check.

Originally posted by technical difficulties
Ultimately, i think this saying sums it up well: "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it" which I believe describes your quote to a t.

And exactly how many times, and for how long, have I repeated my 'lie'?

You forget that it is the Liberal-Establishment of the western world that is currently ushering in a totalitarian police state akin to that of Stalin's Regime, and who repeat outrageous lies about their opponents ("racist", "nazi", "extremist")

Originally posted by Cythraul

Originally posted by technical difficulties
Ultimately, i think this saying sums it up well: "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it" which I believe describes your quote to a t.

And exactly how many times, and for how long, have I repeated my 'lie'?

You forget that it is the Liberal-Establishment of the western world that is currently ushering in a totalitarian police state akin to that of Stalin's Regime, and who repeat outrageous lies about their opponents ("racist", "nazi", "extremist")

I'm not referring to you in particular, im referring to the fact that I see the quote get used quite often. Also, I find it ironic that you complain about being called extremist right after you made an extremist remark.