NationStates Jolt Archive

Consider this, (and this is my logic, I'm voting for Liberals here). Do Conservatives or Liberals attend college more? More often it is Liberals right? Right. And are college students usually smarter or stupider than non-college students? Smarter right? Right. So, putting two and two together, can we safely say that Liberals are smarter than Conservatives?

This is the spirit of the idea here. I am going for Liberals, but it would be nice to see someone do a good job with Conservatives too. Yay, heated debate!!!

I think that people have a healthy balance of those opposites are the smartest, because they aren't too extreme with their beliefs and they are open to both sides.

There are MORONS and SMART PEOPLE on both sides.

This is an impossible argument. None in general are smarter. There are some very smart liberals and very dumb ones. Same goes for conservatives. It's a belief system, nothing to do with I.Q. That's like asking if Christians or jews are smarter.

(btw, i'm liberal)

Since I am more liberal, I will make a simple case for us: Since liberal, by definition, means that you are breaking away from the norm, and conservative means you prefer things the way they are, or to revert to an older standard, all societal advances have been made by liberals. After a century or so, almost all societal advances are considered better than the previous alternative. Therefore, liberals must be smarter.

I could probably do better if I really cared... but it's kind of a flamebait argument to start in the first place.

Now that I think about it, what Japaica and Enodscopia said.^^^^

Right, I know that is on relative terms, but this is all about personal opinion. I'm not asking you to be objective, I just want some fun debate. I know it was a horrible question, but I want to know if anyone can try to be logical about an answer. And I already offered Liberals as more intelligent. My reason is that college students are generally liberal, and generally smarter (in my opinion) (I.Q., SAT scores, GPA, education, whatever the means you would choose to use for the determination of intelligence.)

I voted "neither/the same" option, but I'd like to point out a true quote...

"When people think, Democrats win." - William Jefferson Clinton, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart :D

Don't be nice! Don't hold back! I'm looking for some blatantly flaming (with logic) remarks! Let's have some political ideology bashing fun!!!

Nuttin' personal, i just like the fourth choice, thanx for putting it up. It looks like a majority is forming around it ... hmmm.
On a more serious note, i agree with Zincite in general. I would also further that a group of folks that continue to stand behind an agenda, let's say a faith-based agenda, by definition only have so much information to rely on and are giving the rest up to wishful thinking. Wishful thinking in one hand, reality in the other .....
In broadening that perspective, which group between conservatives and liberals tends to do that?
And in the face of changing conditions that would of course befuddle a faith-based group of influentual individuals, when that group, instead of dealing with new and changing information (constantly?) would prefer to rationalize the info to the best of their understanding as not to derail their attitude and perspecitve ..... leaving them with a skewed version of events that pleases them although it hasn't much to do with the actuality of the situation.
So as a further interpretation in this, which group is more delusional, steadfast, stubborn and quick to paint the opposite with factless accusations and innuendo?
If the issue of being smarter isn't defined enough here, someone else is gonna have to take the reigns .....

(sic)
An example of new info i must adapt to or rationalize ...
perspective, not perspecitve
Oh lordy what i do now

Well come on, I would never leave such a blatantly stupid question up without that option. The thing is, I know it is stupid, and the idea is to have some fun. I mean seriously, you bring an opinion into a forum, and you almost always leave with the same one. The only reason that we should be doing this anyway is to try to have some heated debate and to practice our typing speed.

OK, it is time for me to try to get some flaming started.

Conservatives are not as intelligent as liberals because they usually come to a conclusion based on the conclusion of others. Also, Conservatives are less likely, in an argument, to consider the other sides' point of view (and don't scream, assumption, I have learned this from much experience.)

To an anarchist, the difference between the democrats and republicans is very little. Compared to the differences between anarchists, the democrats and republicans are hardly all that different, indeed, they pretty much qualify as forms of the same political ideology. Neither advocates anything truly radical.

Well, if you want the truth on my ideology, I'm an Anarcho-Marxist. I'm not trying to be Partisian. I know some very intelligent Republicans, they just happen to be moderate. And the whole "Democrats and Republicans are the same" thing, really doesn't have much truth to it. I mean sure, Clinton did like free trade, but that is about the only Republican similarity with that president. And Bush isn't anything like a Democrat.

Consider this, (and this is my logic, I'm voting for Liberals here). Do Conservatives or Liberals attend college more? More often it is Liberals right? Right. And are college students usually smarter or stupider than non-college students? Smarter right? Right. So, putting two and two together, can we safely say that Liberals are smarter than Conservatives?

This is the spirit of the idea here. I am going for Liberals, but it would be nice to see someone do a good job with Conservatives too. Yay, heated debate!!!
Maybe it's not that more liberals go to college, maybe it's more people who are in college are liberal. You know the old saying "If you're not liberal at 20 you don't have a heart, and if your not conservative by 40 you don't have a brain."

And to the people who brought up Dems and Reps, that ain't what we're talking about...

Besides, the Democrats are most definitely NOT predominantly liberal. Both major parties are mostly conservative.

People are not smart because they are conservative, they are conservative because they are smart. I'd be happy to debate each individual point with you in appropriate threads.

Yes, but people while they are in college are at their peak as far as observations of the events and patterns in the world go. The last bit of education they will ever get, and the last time they will ever go out to examine what is going on. I still think kids go to college, then become liberal, because oftentimes those that don't go to college, don't become liberal.

Colleges teach liberalism. Women's study classes generally teach about radical feminists rather than women like Amelia Earhart and Eleanor Roosevelt and Grover Cleveland and Ronald Reagan are not well-received.

END THE INDOCTRINATION!

Yes, but people while they are in college are at their peak as far as observations of the events and patterns in the world go. The last bit of education they will ever get, and the last time they will ever go out to examine what is going on. I still think kids go to college, then become liberal, because oftentimes those that don't go to college, don't become liberal.
well this is assuming people who go to college are all smart. Trust me there are lots of college kids that don't know s--t about s--t. They may be learning things but that doesn't mean once you leave college all information stops, in fact you probably learn more once you get out of college. True college gives you a lot more general information, life itself gives you knowledge of the world.

How about in this one Paxania? You have to go up against these points.

1. Liberals choose to stay as informed as possible (as you can watch by looking at any other thread in this forum, and how liberals are likely to use a source in their arguments)
2. Liberals are more likely to try to work off of the flaws in other people's arguments, rather than decry them as being wrong (as you can also watch by the way these threads are handled by liberals and conservatives)
3. Liberals are more likely to debate in some manner than conservatives (as you can watch by the amount of liberals in these forums to the amount of conservatives, even though the populations are relatively equal)

I look forward to your points.

My answer:

Liberals are smarter

I'm advancing that purely because Republicans/Conservatives claim that liberals control college, and in reality, the majority of Professors are indeed liberals.

I think college professors are pretty smart.

HOWEVER

I believe, without fact or reason, that more conservatives control corporations and make billions than liberals.

That makes THOSE particular conservatives smarter.

However, it doesn't make up for one little thing:

the majority of conservatives do not belong to the wealthiest 1% of the population and are more likely to be swayed by religion when voting.

They recently released an exhaustive survey of economic data, with a very obvious conclusions--the only people who are economically better off with a Rep. are the wealthiest 1% of this nation.

Therefore, if you are going to vote for someone who is going to give you a harder time to get by, you are probably not as smart as someone voting for a democrat.

I truly appreciate that not only am I being called a mass murderer, I'm now being called a mass murderer by enlightened souls.

Colleges teach liberalism. Women's study classes generally teach about radical feminists rather than women like Amelia Earhart and Eleanor Roosevelt and Grover Cleveland and Ronald Reagan are not well-received.

END THE INDOCTRINATION!
true, but what would you expect from a women's studies class.

Colleges teach liberalism. Women's study classes generally teach about radical feminists rather than women like Amelia Earhart and Eleanor Roosevelt and Grover Cleveland and Ronald Reagan are not well-received.

END THE INDOCTRINATION!

You mean great conservative women like Grover Cleveland and Ronald Reagan are being ignored in Women's Studies classes? :eek: :rolleyes: :cool:

Maybe it's not that more liberals go to college, maybe it's more people who are in college are liberal. You know the old saying "If you're not liberal at 20 you don't have a heart, and if your not conservative by 40 you don't have a brain."

How true... after college kids graduate most of them go out into the world to get REAL jobs. After people start paying income tax and watch half their paychecks go down the toliet alot of people turn conservative.

It happened to me

Hows that logic workin for ya?

Define Liberal.
Define Conservative.

My answer:

Liberals are smarter

I'm advancing that purely because Republicans/Conservatives claim that liberals control college, and in reality, the majority of Professors are indeed liberals.

I think college professors are pretty smart.
smart, but usually a little off their rocker.

I think it's about the same. Both sides are about equal. A good example is that the Bush administration was able to mislead the entire US, but even with the proof that they did lie there are still conservatives that believe them, and their is still the president. Liberals have their idiots too, but that was that was the best examle I could come up with.

They recently released an exhaustive survey of economic data, with a very obvious conclusions--the only people who are economically better off with a Rep. are the wealthiest 1% of this nation.

who is "they"

True, but colleges also teach Conservatism. If you visit any economics lecture, you will probably see the professor talking about the benefits of Capitalism, Consumerism, Corporatism, or something along those lines.

Women's studies emerged out of professors realizing that women seemed to be more willing to critically discuss matters than men were. In the interest of critical thought, they opened up classes emphasizing the achievements of women. And the reason that they didn't choose to emphasize Amelia Earhart, or Roosevelt, was because though these women had done something, they had only accomplished something. They were heroes, but little more than that. The reason that professors teach about Hellen Keller was not because of her triumphant recovery from being blind and deaf, but because she was one of the first outspoken women Communists

Comandante, if you consider Democrats & Al Gore liberal (which in America it is but depending on your definition...), more high school drop outs voted for him than Bush - 20% more.

And I don't agree with your points.

For 1, I've seen plenty of unbacked claims - how many times have the words "War for oil", "The US put Saddam in power", "US has murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians", etc. been muttered on this forum? No side, IMO, really comes out cleaner, although liberals do outnumber Conservatives in this forum. Look at the polls that ask "George Bush or John Kerry?" or even the general pattern of UN resolutions. I don't know about 2, either. I've seen plenty of people on both sides just go "nope your wrong" and then it takes like 15 posts until something substantial is posted, too.

Consider this, (and this is my logic, I'm voting for Liberals here). Do Conservatives or Liberals attend college more? More often it is Liberals right? Right. And are college students usually smarter or stupider than non-college students? Smarter right? Right. So, putting two and two together, can we safely say that Liberals are smarter than Conservatives?

This is the spirit of the idea here. I am going for Liberals, but it would be nice to see someone do a good job with Conservatives too. Yay, heated debate!!!

You cannot safely say that Liberals are smarter than Conservatives. You didn't use logic. Remember all those Venn diagrams and "All Nits are twits and no twits are spits, so are all nits not spits?" kinda deals?

If you wanted logic, do a survey on where people are on the political spectrum, then take IQ scores. You should not really find a difference, I'd expect, since political ideas has as much to do with intelligence as chalk has to do with bananas.

You've yet to prove that more Liberals attend college. You've yet to prove that college students are smarter. You cannot prove that the smarter students are Liberal through your logic. It's not logical.

I don't consider them liberal. liberal and conservative only come from where you sit at. For example, I am an extreme, violent, radical, fundamentalist leftist, even to myself. That puts Al Gore at Conservative, McCain at neo-fascist (even though I like him) Bush at Satan, and anyone in the KKK that I ever see, I will kill with my bare hands. So no, I think that it is all relative. But, in the spirit of the thread, we are going from what a Moderate would say.

True, there are quite a few unmitigated claims running rampant, but frankly, both sides have them. For instance, there are conservatives (not my conservatives, everyone elses conservatives) who say that the left are all communists who are going to turn on America and take over the world.
HELL NO! I'M THE ONLY COMMUNIST WHO IS PLOTTING THAT! Oops, well, at least that is true.

You have to examine which side is more than likely to back up their arguments with facts. I mean come on, every side has it's wackos and conspiracy theorists!

So all I'm saying is that relatively speaking, liberals are more likely to use facts in an argument than conservatives.

[QUOTE=Kwangistar] or even the general pattern of UN resolutions. [QUOTE]
That's why I didn't join the UN this time around. I think I quit last time when they passed an abortion law or something like that. That should not be a UN resolution IMO.

Just cause most ppl in collage are librals doesnt prove which side is better.
(most librals in collage are peace loving hippies who protest just about anything)

It depends on who does better in politics and in office.

Well, if we are to going to use I.Q., then on a standardized I.Q. test, Radical leftists are the most intelligent.

I scored a 165 on a written test 2 years ago. The level for genius started at 140.

Is that still a binding argument? That I.Q. is the best way to judge intelligence? Because in that case, things aren't looking good for anyone who isn't radical, at this point.

So all I'm saying is that relatively speaking, liberals are more likely to use facts in an argument than conservatives.
I think it is relative to who you are. If I'm scanning threads, I'm more likely to read carefully liberal posts rather than conservative posts, and more likely to pick up on liberal mistakes/lies/other things than I am a conservative, so it seems to me that liberals are guilty of what you see conservatives as.

They are both retards. Libertarians are the only ones with brains.

And by the way, the reason why college students are liberal is because of the professors. Most professors at four year colleges have been nothing but professors their whole lives, meaning they are completely cut off in their stuffy ivory towers from the rest of the world, and have no idea how it works. Particularly in the areas of political science, humanities and philosophy (those professors who are completely useless to the private sector), you will find mostly marxist professors. They are tenured, have near absolute job security, they know it comes mostly from the government (even private colleges receive some benefits from the government), so to ensure that no one will ever take that away, they infect their students with their ideology. Think of it. If all the colleges disappeared tomorrow, the philosophy professors would all starve. What use does any other institution have for a person who spends all day standing in front of a room and asking people to prove that they are not a brain in a vat with electrodes clipped to it and that this reality is all an illusion? The philosophy professors know that. My lowly state college is a bit better than the horror stories I have heard from friends going to bigger name universities, but I am still disgusted by the intolerance on the part of the "liberal" professors to other ideologies.
I have actually found that the more "educated" a person is, the stupider they are. Many of the smartest people I know have never set foot in a college. At my college, there is a woman with six PhD's and she is damn near a retard.

That being said, given that I believe there are more liberals on this board than conservatives, it would seem logical that if everyone made an equal mount of mistakes liberals on this board would make more than conservatives in the big picture. (As in : 60% of mistakes are ones made by liberals, 40% are made by conservatives)

Camandante, Are you a member of the errnesto-guavera board?
Why are you a communist?

What are you gaining by being a communist?-NOTHING-
Communism, socialism, statism, and libralism are self-destructive.
The basis of all of these philosphies are collectivism and altruism, which are never in the beholder's best interests.

Collectivism being the most irrational idea ever concieved robs people of their individuality and their unalienable right to provide for themselves(pursue happieness).

Aren't liberal prostesters the people always yelling about expressing their individuality? <-- That people is inconsistancy with their own beliefs!

Altruism is easily summed up by one question: Why the hell would you give away your hard earned money without expecting to get something in return??

If you consider yourself a communist, socialist, statist, or a libral
you, in FACT are irrational, illogical, and a credit to all of your
self-destructive mongoloid marxist idealogues.

If you are going to claim that Libertarians are smarter, then you have to consider this. And I'm not going to lie. I don't lie to push forward an argument, so just trust me. I had a kid that I knew, a Jewish libertarian kid, who I always got into arguments with. He was extremely well informed and had a high I.Q. He was put on the wait list at Harvard, and goes to New York University right now (where the Olsen twins go). Well, for some reason, every time we got in a debate, I always seemed to be able to rip him a new one. He believed in Objectivism, but for some reason a "out of touch with reality Marxist" was always able to beat him when it came to a contest of logic. I'm not an Idealist. I believe in the logical use of Marxism for the propogation of mankind.

Camandante, Are you a member of the errnesto-guavera board?
Why are you a communist?

Because I have Objectively concluded that Communism is the best system for the propogation and advancement of both the working-class and the entire species of humans.

If you want a discussion on that, it will take awhile, but right now I'm juggling one side of an argument, and trying my best not to fumble it.

I think that people have a healthy balance of those opposites are the smartest, because they aren't too extreme with their beliefs and they are open to both sides.
Amen to that

It's about the same. Intelligence isn't the same thing as education. Stupidity isn't the same thing as ignorance.

Just cause most ppl in collage are librals doesnt prove which side is better.
(most librals in collage are peace loving hippies who protest just about anything)

It depends on who does better in politics and in office.


They are also more likely to look for facts as to why they should be peace-loving hippies. And if you are going to go on the merit of how people do in political office, you are going to have to pit the immense success of Franklin Roosevelt and Bill Clinton against the success of the best Conservatives. This will be a major feat. If you use Nixon, I can say that his record with paranoia was highly detrimental to the state of the country. If you use Reagan, than I can say that, although he was honest about his mistakes, he also is responsible for the huge amount of homeless living in my town, and all the others (after he shut down the halfway houses and mental asylums, the non-functioning Insane and Skhitzophrenics were forced to try to rejoin society, of which they were unable to do.) If you say George Junior, I can just say that he presided over the only loss of jobs in America since the Great Depression.

So pretty much speaking, you have a lot to go up against.

Honestly, I think moderates are smarter than either of them - they have enough common sense to realise that you can't have it your way all the time so they'll be willing to compromise

They are also more likely to look for facts as to why they should be peace-loving hippies. And if you are going to go on the merit of how people do in political office, you are going to have to pit the immense success of Franklin Roosevelt and Bill Clinton against the success of the best Conservatives. This will be a major feat. If you use Nixon, I can say that his record with paranoia was highly detrimental to the state of the country. If you use Reagan, than I can say that, although he was honest about his mistakes, he also is responsible for the huge amount of homeless living in my town, and all the others (after he shut down the halfway houses and mental asylums, the non-functioning Insane and Skhitzophrenics were forced to try to rejoin society, of which they were unable to do.) If you say George Junior, I can just say that he presided over the only loss of jobs in America since the Great Depression.

So pretty much speaking, you have a lot to go up against.
What was the immense success of Bill Clinton and Franklin Roosevelt?

http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQ-SATchart.htm

Here you go. On these pages, it shows that the average American I.Q. is 98, while the average I.Q. for someone taking the SAT is 110. Considering that it is not possible to get into college without taking the SAT, we have to assume that college students have an average I.Q. of 110

Here you go. There is the proof, that at least college students have higher I.Q.'s, and if this is going to be the measure of intelligence, then this argument is as good as won.

The problem is that there's more than one kind of intelligence.


And if you are going to go on the merit of how people do in political office, you are going to have to pit the immense success of Franklin Roosevelt and Bill Clinton against the success of the best Conservatives.

You say this, but then use Reagan and Dubya as your examples of "the best conservatives?" Surely you know that's not a fair argument.

http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQ-SATchart.htm

Here you go. On these pages, it shows that the average American I.Q. is 98, while the average I.Q. for someone taking the SAT is 110. Considering that it is not possible to get into college without taking the SAT, we have to assume that college students have an average I.Q. of 110

Here you go. There is the proof, that at least college students have higher I.Q.'s, and if this is going to be the measure of intelligence, then this argument is as good as won.

That's not logic, that's statistics, so it doesn't count.

Franklin Roosevelt (and I will leave all my socialist beliefs aside) presided over an enormous job and economic gain in this country, while having a direct hand in causing some of those jobs (work programs). Plus, the infrastructure that was built during his administration (dams, roads, power lines, railroads, etc.) were the one of the main causes for the industrialization of the agrarian parts of America.

Bill Clinton presided over a giant economic and job gain in this country during his administration as well. He also presided over the only budget surplus we have had since deficit spending was introduced.

Socially, I will leave both of these alone, because what is good for one person is bad for someone else, but everyone wins when the ecomomy improves!!!

http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQ-SATchart.htm

Here you go. On these pages, it shows that the average American I.Q. is 98, while the average I.Q. for someone taking the SAT is 110. Considering that it is not possible to get into college without taking the SAT, we have to assume that college students have an average I.Q. of 110

Here you go. There is the proof, that at least college students have higher I.Q.'s, and if this is going to be the measure of intelligence, then this argument is as good as won.
As I said, in America, the majority of people who are in or have gone to college voted Republican in 2000!

The problem is that there's more than one kind of intelligence.




You say this, but then use Reagan and Dubya as your examples of "the best conservatives?" Surely you know that's not a fair argument.


I was using that as an example. Remember, I leave it up to you to find the best Conservative presidents. Those were the only ones I could think of. If you have better ones, just use those.

Franklin Roosevelt (and I will leave all my socialist beliefs aside) presided over an enormous job and economic gain in this country, while having a direct hand in causing some of those jobs (work programs). Plus, the infrastructure that was built during his administration (dams, roads, power lines, railroads, etc.) were the one of the main causes for the industrialization of the agrarian parts of America.
Presiding over an enormous job and economic gain dosen't really mean that you should be credited for it. He started from rock bottom, had over twelve years and the largest war in world history to fuel industry and economy. We weren't really out of the Great Depression (although the worst was over) until WW2. I'd agree that a lot of the infrastructure he built was good. But that happens under most Presidents as well and isn't, in my opinion, a way to say that he had huge success.

Bill Clinton presided over a giant economic and job gain in this country during his administration as well. He also presided over the only budget surplus we have had since deficit spending was introduced.

Reagan presided over a boom too. The economic success in and of itself does not make the leader of the country at the time great - how much the President influenced the boom does. BTW, the budget surplus was only there because a Republican-dominated Congress was there to do things like block massive healthcare plans that would have been bigger than even George Bush's.

As I said, in America, the majority of people who are in or have gone to college voted Republican in 2000!


That seems a bit odd, considering most of the people who are currently in college are liberal.

If you also look at the details of that, you will see that most of the people who pursued a Master's or a Doctorate degree voted for Gore. So that is still all relative. We also had no idea what Dubya was going to be like. If I remember correctly, most people thought he was going to be fairly moderate. A kind of a 4 year Gerald Ford. Something that really didn't matter. Also, most of the Republicans elected to the house and senate were incumbents. Incumbency has a large advantagee when times are good, and times during the Clinton presidency were definitely good. I wonder if as many Republicans will be elected this time around?

Since I am more liberal, I will make a simple case for us: Since liberal, by definition, means that you are breaking away from the norm, and conservative means you prefer things the way they are, or to revert to an older standard, all societal advances have been made by liberals. After a century or so, almost all societal advances are considered better than the previous alternative. Therefore, liberals must be smarter.

I should pose the following question: while you say almost all societal advances are considered better than the previous alternative, is this REALLY true so much of the time?

Obviously I'm not about to argue advances like gender, racial equality, and so on. Those are VERY necessary, and I am quite happy for them. That includes as a conservative, because I think that equality's absolutely INTEGRAL to allowing everyone to succeed on their own merits. That's the only way to level the playing field and give everyone a fair shot.

But are ALL societal "advances" positive? Is there a such thing as too far? I don't think it's quite right to assume that all of these changes will be positive. I believe that a reasonable person will duly consider that they may not be, as well, and think that through before blindly adopting the latest "against-the-norm" craze. SOME norms exist because they actually do serve well.

Presiding over an enormous job and economic gain dosen't really mean that you should be credited for it. He started from rock bottom, had over twelve years and the largest war in world history to fuel industry and economy. We weren't really out of the Great Depression (although the worst was over) until WW2. I'd agree that a lot of the infrastructure he built was good. But that happens under most Presidents as well and isn't, in my opinion, a way to say that he had huge success.

True, the war was what truly got us out of the Depression, but because the war effort was only maintainable because of the infrastructure that FDR had built, it is very safe to say that FDR was the cause of the economic boom.

That may seem like BS, but think about it. The economy would not have recovered without the war. The war wouldn't have happened without the infrastructure FDR built. Thus, FDR was the cause of our economic recovery.



Reagan presided over a boom too. The economic success in and of itself does not make the leader of the country at the time great - how much the President influenced the boom does. BTW, the budget surplus was only there because a Republican-dominated Congress was there to do things like block massive healthcare plans that would have been bigger than even George Bush's.


Well I hope I disproved that first point you make. The leader does have a direct hand. Granted, Reagan did help cause the boom, but he also pushed for some legislation that would have ended it. He was going to increase the military budget 30% more than he had already, and he was going to cut taxes. Even though he had a Republican house and senate, they still shot that legislation down.

Clinton went on his push for Medicare AFTER the problems over the budget had been gotten over. Early in his presidency was when he was warring with the GOP over the budget. He pushed for Medicare after it was apparent that we had a budget surplus, and when it would have been a good idea to try.

I shouldn't have to find my own examples of good conservative Presidents. It was your example, and it was flawed.

Apart from that, though, and more importantly, why are you comparing Presidents? They're just puppets for what's really going on -they don't get to make the decisions. Industrialization was, by far, more a result of the Robber Barons' moves towards a stabilized, regulated market than any Presidential initiatives(far more so than those of FDR). The revitalization of the American economy was mostly due to our involvement in WWII(some people claim FDR intentionally allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, in which case I suppose you COULD give him responsibility for our involvement, and thus our improved economy), and the fact that you simply couldn't have gone anywhere but up after the likes of Hoover. The New Deal was sham, a pretty name under which to collect numerous different(and sometimes opposing) initiatives. But, I don't know if I would truly consider FDR a "liberal," he always seemed more of a slightly-liberal moderate to me.

Well I hope I disproved that first point you make. The leader does have a direct hand. Granted, Reagan did help cause the boom, but he also pushed for some legislation that would have ended it. He was going to increase the military budget 30% more than he had already, and he was going to cut taxes. Even though he had a Republican house and senate, they still shot that legislation down.

Clinton went on his push for Medicare AFTER the problems over the budget had been gotten over. Early in his presidency was when he was warring with the GOP over the budget. He pushed for Medicare after it was apparent that we had a budget surplus, and when it would have been a good idea to try.
IIRC, Republicans never controlled the House during the Reagan presidency (they didn't until 1996), and tax cuts wouldn't have hurt the boom, they would have helped it. Early in Clinton's presidency, the GOP wasn't in power in Congress, and thats when Clinton ran his deficits, btw.

IIRC, Republicans never controlled the House during the Reagan presidency (they didn't until 1996), and tax cuts wouldn't have hurt the boom, they would have helped it. Early in Clinton's presidency, the GOP wasn't in power in Congress, and thats when Clinton ran his deficits, btw.
early in clintons presidency we were still running down from reaganomics and bush fun

IIRC, Republicans never controlled the House during the Reagan presidency (they didn't until 1996), and tax cuts wouldn't have hurt the boom, they would have helped it. Early in Clinton's presidency, the GOP wasn't in power in Congress, and thats when Clinton ran his deficits, btw.


Ah, trickle-down economics. The fantasy of the conservative economist. The tax cuts Reagan proposed were to go to the wealthy, as the tax cuts under the Bush Administration go to. We saw, early on in the 20th century, that tax cuts to the rich only make them richer, and not aid in the economy. This was one of the principle causes of the stock market crash in 1932. Granted, Protectionism hurt the most, but the trickle-down economic theory still hurt.

Sorry about the Majority with the GOP thing. I forgot that in both cases, they were nearly ties. But still, even though it was split like that, Republicans still controlled the majority of the Congress, in both cases they did. Clinton also started off with a fairly substantial deficit to begin with. He didn't make any giant cuts, because they would have hurt his constituency. He did help to reduce the deficit by a bit, although the majority of the reduction was during the push for a balanced budget.

Ah, trickle-down economics. The fantasy of the conservative economist. The tax cuts Reagan proposed were to go to the wealthy, as the tax cuts under the Bush Administration go to.
The tax cuts under the Bush administration go to everyone.


We saw, early on in the 20th century, that tax cuts to the rich only make them richer, and not aid in the economy. This was one of the principle causes of the stock market crash in 1932. Granted, Protectionism hurt the most, but the trickle-down economic theory still hurt.
The economy in the early 1900's is different than the economy today. Income tax was only introduced during World War 1, income inequality was already huge.

Sorry about the Majority with the GOP thing. I forgot that in both cases, they were nearly ties. But still, even though it was split like that, Republicans still controlled the majority of the Congress, in both cases they did. Clinton also started off with a fairly substantial deficit to begin with. He didn't make any giant cuts, because they would have hurt his constituency. He did help to reduce the deficit by a bit, although the majority of the reduction was during the push for a balanced budget.
Democrats controlled the senate at the end of Reagan's Presidency and the beggining of Clinton's as well - George Mitchell being the Senate majority leader during that time.

Although the economy in the 1900s WAS different(markedly so), I'm pretty sure there was an introduction of the income tax before WWI, that later was reversed... I don't have my sources with me right now, though, so I can't(ATM) verify this.

Although the economy in the 1900s WAS different(markedly so), I'm pretty sure there was an introduction of the income tax before WWI, that later was reversed... I don't have my sources with me right now, though, so I can't(ATM) verify this.
There was in the civil war, I think, but it wasn't permanent.

Study after study has concluded that the more successful one is, the more likely they are to vote Republican.

This can be interpreted in more than one way, however, and I'm sure other people on this thread will fill all those interpretations in shortly.

Oh dear god, you call 2 seats controlling? And the tax cuts under Bush have affected me by .15% of my income, while they affect the rich by a far greater percentage.

You were sounding very intelligent until you tried that. The reduction to the income taxes, and social security (the only ones that affect the vast majority of Americans) is so small that I couldn't even buy a Game boy with mine.

Meanwhile, the tax cuts that affect almost solely the rich (capital-gain, estate tax, etc.) were almost obliterated. They only affect those that sit in the top 5% income bracket in America. That sure as hell doesn't seem like "tax cuts going to everyone" to me.

Note : The "Income Tax" amendment (allowed it to become permanent) was passed in 1913. My bad.

Oh dear god, you call 2 seats controlling?
Yes, it is controlling. Dems controlled both the House and Senate (and thus Congress) in the beggining of Clinton's term and the end of Reagan's. They controlled the house the whole time during Reagan's, I think.

And the tax cuts under Bush have affected me by .15% of my income, while they affect the rich by a far greater percentage.

You were sounding very intelligent until you tried that. The reduction to the income taxes, and social security (the only ones that affect the vast majority of Americans) is so small that I couldn't even buy a Game boy with mine.
Actually, the poorest Americans got the largest income tax cut (5%). The Rich got affected by a percentage equal to the rest of America. All the taxes added together you could make the case that the rich got more out of it than the poor. Income tax speaking (percentage), the poorest got the most, while the middle class and rich got less amounts. So yes, tax cuts did end up going to everyone that paid income taxes.

Study after study has concluded that the more successful one is, the more likely they are to vote Republican.

This can be interpreted in more than one way, however, and I'm sure other people on this thread will fill all those interpretations in shortly.


I will offer mine. A person is more likely to vote Republican if White, Male, or in Business (naturally, some combination of these are more effective). I can offer you sources, but I don't feel like it right now, my internet is pretty laggy. For some reason, people who are white, male, or in business are more wealthy.

A white female working the same job as a white male will make on average about 75% of that males pay.

A non-white working the same job as a white male will make, on average, about 65% of what the white male makes.

A person who has a master's degree will make, on average, about 50% as someone who also has a master's degree, but decided to go into business.

There are MORONS and SMART PEOPLE on both sides.

I agree, with the exception of the phrase "SMART PEOPLE" - eliminate that from the above sentence, and it is true..... <VBG>

Actually, the poorest Americans got the largest income tax cut (5%). The Rich got affected by a percentage equal to the rest of America. All the taxes added together you could make the case that the rich got more out of it than the poor. Income tax speaking (percentage), the poorest got the most, while the middle class and rich got less amounts. So yes, tax cuts did end up going to everyone that paid income taxes.


If you are going to reason it that way, fine. When I'm president I'll cut your taxes by a dollar and call it a tax cut. The numbers were so small that they can't even be considered a tax cut! The only substantial cuts went to the rich!

Besides, the average income for the poorest 5% of Americans dropped by 20%, that seems a bit more negative to me!

Comandante,
It is possible that your Jewish Libertarian friend may have just been a bad communicator. I used to choke all the time in debates, even if I seemed to have started off well. Even now that I have much better communication skills, I am always frustrated in debates when I am trying to construct a long chain of premises and am never allowed to finish, because the idiot I am debating with does not have the attention span of a flea and just as much ability to think in abstract concepts interrupts me with his next argument. I no longer even bother with person-to-person debates much any more. If I want to argue an issue, I get a column published in the college newspaper, and people who want to debate me on it can use the same newspaper to write a rebuttle, or send me an e-mail. This way is best for me, because I can closely analyse the arguments made and it is easier to see things for what they are. An argument that would make a libertarian concede in a debate might look completely stupid once he/she has time to take a critical look at it. Most of the e-mails and some of the newspaper rebuttles are so ridiculous that they only prove how stupid college students are. Once in a while, there is an intelligent one, and that can be very interesting. I do not know how many of those debates I "won" though.
That could be another explanation. Unless they say something like, "you are right", you do not know if you out-debated them. Most people go into the debate so convinced of their ideas are the right ones, that they "know" that they are right, that when they leave the debate, they think that the other person was convinced too. I know that I have won two and a half debates (I conceded a few arguments, but not my whole idea once, which is where I get the half) and lost none. I know this because two of the people I was debating eventually conceded, and I came to an agreement with another, and all the rest just let me have the last word and did not write anything again. So I am careful when I say I won a debate.
Furthermore, I find IQ tests to be rather dubious, since I have scored 136, 145 and 158 on mine. Which one is correct? Are IQ tests ever correct at all?
Additionally, I am in college and have never taken SAT's ACT's or even graduated. After high school, I went to the local open-admissions community college and went on to my current four year college from there.

A person who has a master's degree will make, on average, about 50% as someone who also has a master's degree, but decided to go into business.

The other two statistics you posted are relevant, but this one is not. Why WOULDN'T somebody who goes into business make more money?

If you are going to reason it that way, fine. When I'm president I'll cut your taxes by a dollar and call it a tax cut. The numbers were so small that they can't even be considered a tax cut! The only substantial cuts went to the rich!

Besides, the average income for the poorest 5% of Americans dropped by 20%, that seems a bit more negative to me!
You can't really get a $70,000 tax cut if you only pay $5,000 in taxes.

Comandante,
It is possible that your Jewish Libertarian friend may have just been a bad communicator. I used to choke all the time in debates, even if I seemed to have started off well. Even now that I have much better communication skills, I am always frustrated in debates when I am trying to construct a long chain of premises and am never allowed to finish, because the idiot I am debating with does not have the attention span of a flea and just as much ability to think in abstract concepts interrupts me with his next argument. I no longer even bother with person-to-person debates much any more. If I want to argue an issue, I get a column published in the college newspaper, and people who want to debate me on it can use the same newspaper to write a rebuttle, or send me an e-mail. This way is best for me, because I can closely analyse the arguments made and it is easier to see things for what they are. An argument that would make a libertarian concede in a debate might look completely stupid once he/she has time to take a critical look at it. Most of the e-mails and some of the newspaper rebuttles are so ridiculous that they only prove how stupid college students are. Once in a while, there is an intelligent one, and that can be very interesting. I do not know how many of those debates I "won" though.
That could be another explanation. Unless they say something like, "you are right", you do not know if you out-debated them. Most people go into the debate so convinced of their ideas are the right ones, that they "know" that they are right, that when they leave the debate, they think that the other person was convinced too. I know that I have won two and a half debates (I conceded a few arguments, but not my whole idea once, which is where I get the half) and lost none. I know this because two of the people I was debating eventually conceded, and I came to an agreement with another, and all the rest just let me have the last word and did not write anything again. So I am careful when I say I won a debate.
Furthermore, I find IQ tests to be rather dubious, since I have scored 136, 145 and 158 on mine. Which one is correct? Are IQ tests ever correct at all?
Additionally, I am in college and have never taken SAT's ACT's or even graduated. After high school, I went to the local open-admissions community college and went on to my current four year college from there.



That does make sense, except for the fact that he was the reigning chair of the MUN club. If you don't know, that is a very structured debate club, and it requires enormous finesse, which he had.

Most of the I.Q. tests that you find on the internet are a bad judge of anything. For example, I have been debating for the past 5 hours and so my brain is in it's utmost peak right now. I would be able to score in the 200's.
No, the only legitimate I.Q. tests (and most experts would agree) are the ones that are administered to you via a tester. Those tests actually are standardized, and work so that 50%of people score a 100 or higer, 75% score a 75 or higher, and 25% score a 125 or higher. The problem with high I.Q. people is that they make the high scores less effective for calculation, because of the rarity/eccentricity of the scores. But, according to the test that was admininstered to me, I have the I.Q. of 1 in 25,000 people, although I think I was just lucky.

The other two statistics you posted are relevant, but this one is not. Why WOULDN'T somebody who goes into business make more money?


Other jobs that require master's degrees (such as law, education, engineering, social work, science, etc.) yield on average 50% as much money as someone who has a Master's degree in Business. And the point I was trying to make was this, that more people who are Businessmen vote Republican, but, on the other hand, for these 5 other fields of work, more people are liberal, and either vote Democratic or Socialist.

Both sides have their intellectuals and idiots. Trying to find out who has how many of each is like trying to compare dick sizes.

6.2 inches. Average is 5.8

I read the first post, which said college students tend to be liberal, so liberals are smarter. a very statement that shows doubt in his point. college students are also young, inexperienced, and largely responsiblility free, as most college students do not pay their own way (i did, and i noticed when others did, and it wasn;t often.) also, demographics show that the wealthiest and highest educated communities tend to vote conservative....the most conservative county in my two states i have lived in were the wealthiest and a master's was the norm.....so i would never say liberal means intelligent or conservative dumb, reality points more to the opposite, actually. and besides, conservatives are not what they used to be nor are liberals what they used to be, it has become so simple minded on ideological grounds in the US, anyway, neither side sounds very intelligent. frankly, non-ideological centrists seem to me to be the most intelligent and open minded, as they stick with what works and change what isn;t, and decide each issue on its' own merits. but the college students tend to be liberal so they are smarter, as about the 3rd post in this thread stated, is just silly as hell. get a job, pay your own taxes, own your own property, and assume a total responsibility for yourself and your family, you'll do what so many ex-liberal college students have done and move to the center or the right, at least reject many of the college campus protective bubble delusions one had....well, most do anyway. i am a social libertarian/liberal and fiscal conservative, in the interest of disclosure. what happened top politicans and people who can decide each issue on its' own merits and do what is best for society at large, rather than party toing and pork? anyway, done with my tangent

well, then, i am out of this argument (can knit with my weewee).......

Im gonna try to bring a different point of veiw to this debate. Both liberals and conservatives are nessasary to the survival of a society, so therefore niether is right. Liberals and radicals allow the society to advance(obviously) and keep it from stagnating. Conservitives, on the other hand, stabilize the society. And as for picking one side or another, it often comes down to a matter of empathy, and how much one has to lose.

* I apologize for not elaberating anymore, but Im feeling sort of frazeled, and I dont want to say anything too stupid.

The issue is not on education though. As you will read with my first post, I was only trying to start some heated debate. It has remained pretty tame so far, but I posted that with intentional ignorance, otherwise no one would have bothered to join in discussion.

And about the trend in your area towards education=conservatism is not the national trend. Nationally, the only high education career in which people are more conservative is business (with banking included in business.)

I'm a liberal college student. I'm paying my own way, bought all my books (and holy shit, did that ever cost me). I was lucky enough to get a job in a fairly stable place (pizza making industry :D) which also helps when it comes to food (if I don't have time to cook, dinner costs a whopping $4).

And, I dunno about others, but I'd rate myself at farily intellegent. I'm ready to admit my mistakes and shortcomings, and I really do hate being left in the dark with some things. I'm straightedge, which means no drugs, alcohol, smoking, or sport fucking.


As for professors being liberal...which professors do you refer to? I've noted that many JC or public college teachers can actually be better then the 4 year ones-in a university, there's a lot of pressure to do research and produce papers and such. At a JC, all you do is teach.



Oh, and I want to say, before someone mentions it in referrence to "liberal college students," hedonistic and liberal are two different things ;)

Im gonna try to bring a different point of veiw to this debate. Both liberals and conservatives are nessasary to the survival of a society, so therefore niether is right. Liberals and radicals allow the society to advance(obviously) and keep it from stagnating. Conservitives, on the other hand, stabilize the society. And as for picking one side or another, it often comes down to a matter of empathy, and how much one has to lose.

* I apologize for not elaberating anymore, but Im feeling sort of frazeled, and I dont want to say anything too stupid.


That is a good point you made, and actually, that is my justification for being an Anarcho-Marxist with extremely radical tendencies. Yay! You guys will all think like me in 200 years!

Don't worry about making an ass of yourself. Sometimes, you have to do it intentionally, like I did to start this thread off. Don't be afraid of debate, you'll get better at it. Trust me.

you mean, of course, liberal arts vs business? business is a very, very wide swath, you know....how about medical? i know an awful lot of conservative doctors, even though you would think the trend would be to be more liberal....engineering? science fields? pretty good mix, really, too....i am saying, simply, that wealth is a better indicator than education, a four year degree is not much an indicator of intelligence anymore.....let';s try this another way.....how many high school grads/dropouts are conservative? i think i rest my case.

How can you bear to go straightedge? My friend had his first threesome the other day, and if I had been there, I would have joined in : )
True, drugs and alcohol are detrimental to both health and mind, but I seem to at least be doing tolerably well, even though I'm such a freaking pothead. Oh, I just got my job too, except, I work at a Subway. Pizza would have been nice, because Portland has some awesome pizza places.

Yeah, a very large portion of dropouts and high school grads are Conservative. But there are always those underachievers who drop out. Or if they drop out because of drugs, then they also tend to be more liberal.

you mean, of course, liberal arts vs business? business is a very, very wide swath, you know....how about medical? i know an awful lot of conservative doctors, even though you would think the trend would be to be more liberal....engineering? science fields? pretty good mix, really, too....i am saying, simply, that wealth is a better indicator than education, a four year degree is not much an indicator of intelligence anymore.....let';s try this another way.....how many high school grads/dropouts are conservative? i think i rest my case.

Money =/= intellegence.

Many times, money = Will to do anything, including the degradation of others.

Now I'm not MKULTRA here, but I do have a distrust towards overly-large industries, mainly because they way to get to the top most often times IS filled with stabable backs.


How can you bear to go straightedge? My friend had his first threesome the other day, and if I had been there, I would have joined in : )
True, drugs and alcohol are detrimental to both health and mind, but I seem to at least be doing tolerably well, even though I'm such a freaking pothead. Oh, I just got my job too, except, I work at a Subway. Pizza would have been nice, because Portland has some awesome pizza places.

Oh, there are numerous reasons for me to be straightedge, not just "it's bad for you" :p. On two parts, it's a self control issue-one, I used to be a cutter, and as such I feel really, really untrustful of anything that causes me to lose control of myself. And two, I made a promise to myself to be straightedge, and until I can find a good, logical reason to break that promise, I'm going to stay with it.

To be honest, it really isn't that hard at all. I have no desire to take drugs, same thing with alcohol. And I hate smoking, it's incredibly disgusting. As for sex...well, I'm not really a sexual person. Much, much more of a sensual one.

It's not that I lack control, it's just that I don't value going straightedge. The only thing I make sure of though, is that I let nothing except myself control my life. I never respond to cravings. I do it when I feel that it is a safe, fun time to do it. It is cool that you choose to go straightedge, just I never would.

Human contact of any kind is great for me. I could sleep in the same bed as a girl, or sleep with the girl, both feel great to me. Plus they smell pretty good. *drools*

How's this for a very simplified argument to get you conservatives fuming. One could suggest that conservative voters are either those who are wealthy and therefore want economic policies that favour the wealthy (hence not necessarily any less intellegent than the average person) OR they are people prone to knee-jerk reactions (eg. death penalty will stop murders! Killing terrorists will stop terrorism! I don't understand homosexuals, so no gay marriage! Killing people is bad, so no abortions! etc).

You could argue that people whose beliefs are based on these kind of knee-jerk reactions are not the smarterest of people. :D

how about an option in the poll that says they are both stupid? :p

Seems like when I read voting demographics in the paper, liberals are more educated. But I know that doesn't mean they're smarter...

But could I be so bld as to ask the thread starter for a source stating that most college students are liberal? If it's true, remember that most college students are also young, therefore probably more liberal.

This is an impossible argument. None in general are smarter. There are some very smart liberals and very dumb ones. Same goes for conservatives. It's a belief system, nothing to do with I.Q.
I agree.

To an anarchist, the difference between the democrats and republicans is very little.
The thread-starter never mentioned Democrats or Republicans.

Maybe it's not that more liberals go to college, maybe it's more people who are in college are liberal. You know the old saying "If you're not liberal at 20 you don't have a heart, and if your not conservative by 40 you don't have a brain."
It was Winston Churchill, and he actually said,

"If you're not socialist by the time you're 20, you don't have a heart, and if your not capitalist by the time you're 40 you don't have a head."

Remember this comes from the man who proposed bombing Germany with anthrax, so he is in no position to lecture anyone about having a heart, or a head for that matter.

So all I'm saying is that relatively speaking, liberals are more likely to use facts in an argument than conservatives.
I wouldn't say this in general, but it's true in arguents on some issues, *cough* homosexual marriage *cough*.

No, conservatives are because they have better things to do the talk to some flaming liberals on a stupid message board

Camandante, Are you a member of the errnesto-guavera board?
Why are you a communist?

What are you gaining by being a communist?-NOTHING-
Communism, socialism, statism, and libralism are self-destructive.
The basis of all of these philosphies are collectivism and altruism, which are never in the beholder's best interests.
Collectivism, a basis of liberalism? Explain. I'm liberal but not collectivist (while not being anarchist).

Just a point here. Logically one could say that conservitives are smarter (I mean the rich ones), as they are acting directly in their own self intrest. However, This often creates resentment in the people who are not in economically successful, and ultimently bring about a revolution. True liberals on the other hand, by atempting to improve the lot of their fellow man, can defuse those tensions. Thus while conservitism is often to the short term advantage, liberalism in the long term is usually the more intelligent choice. That dosnt mean that their arent exceptions, but generally, History has shown this to be true. For example, The French revolution would be an exception, because without conservitives to weight them down, the radicals went crazy.

Basically what I'm saying is that ultimently being liberal is the more intelligent option.

This is just silly. I voted for 'about the same', and I am a liberal. To say that either group is smarter than the other is just to me - ugh.

I am always uncomfortable with people labeling others 'stupid' or 'dumb'. Intelligence is defined as the ability to learn - in my opinion, we all seem to have that ability. Those who have learning difficulties etc. can hardly be discriminated against when their position is beyond their control.

… and if you’re going by IQ – that means absolutely nothing. I know people who have very high IQ’s, yet act really stupidly. I won't comment on what political views they hold, because I don't want to promote any sterotyping.


-end rant-