The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by 3894

There's no arguing with conservatives...No, seriously, scientific studies prove it. Quick quote:

That explains a lot....

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by 3894

There's no arguing with conservatives...No, seriously, scientific studies prove it. Quick quote:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...-liberals.aspx

How exactly did the media know that Gore was so smart and Bush so dumb? In fact, the record did not indicate any of this was true. It was often alleged, probably with reason, that Bush only got into Yale because his father had gone there and his grandfather had been a Connecticut senator. Yet Gore, with high school Bs and Cs (his only As were in art), got into Harvard in part because (like other politicians’ sons, including a raft of Kennedys) his father was a famous senator. At Harvard, Gore’s grades did not improve. In his sophomore year he earned a D, a C-minus, two Cs, two C-pluses and one B-minus. He was in the bottom fifth of his class his first two years in school. Later he flunked out of divinity school (failing five of his eight classes) and dropped out of Vanderbilt University Law School. Gore was once asked (after having served in the U.S. Senate for several years) to name his favourite president. “President Knox,” he replied.

Senator John Kerry, when he ran against George W. Bush in 2004, was likewise heralded as an intellectual in contrast to the ill-informed Bush. It started in 1999, when Kerry “questioned Mr. Bush’s intelligence,” as The New York Times put it.

“All over this country people are asking whether or not George Bush is smart enough to be president of the United States,” Kerry said. During the 2004 campaign he continued with that theme, supported by the Democratic Party, liberal commentators and the mainstream news media. Howell Raines, former executive editor of The New York Times, explained during the election that it was quite obvious that Bush was a dim bulb in contrast to Kerry: “Does anyone in America doubt that Kerry has a higher IQ than Bush? I’m sure the candidates’ SATs and college transcripts would put Kerry far ahead.”
Fact checking was apparently not necessary for Raines. Though at the time, of course, no one could actually check because Kerry kept refusing to release his transcripts from Yale, or any information about intelligence tests that he would have taken as a Navy officer. Bush had taken the equivalent Air Force Qualifying Test, and they would have made a good point of comparison. But the results were not, Kerry said, “relevant” to the campaign, even though his campaign was based in part on Bush’s lack of intelligence. (A similar excuse was made in regard to Kerry’s military records, though his campaign was largely based on his claim to have been a hero in Vietnam — before he became an outspoken critic of the war. In other words, he was for the war before he was against it.)

Then a Navy veteran named Sam Sewell noticed something on the Kerry campaign Web site. In one of the documents posted on the Web page, an obscure military report offered a cryptic score that was actually the result of an IQ-like qualifying test Kerry had taken in 1966. As it happened, George W. Bush had taken the same test just a few years later. Columnist Steve Sailer determined that Bush’s score put him in the 95th percentile, giving him an IQ in the 120s. Kerry’s score was slightly lower, putting him in the 91st percentile.
When these results became public, NBC’s Tom Brokaw asked Kerry about them. He was more than a bit peeved. Kerry dodged the question and wondered out loud how they became public in the first place. “I don’t know how they’ve done it, because my record is not public,” he told Brokaw. “So I don’t know where you’re getting that from.” A few days later, on the Don Imus show, Brokaw revealed just how much it had bugged Kerry that he had been beaten by Bush on the IQ test. After the cameras stopped rolling, Brokaw recalled, Kerry explained, “I must have been drinking the night before I took that military aptitude test.”

After Bush won re-election, it became clear why Kerry hadn’t wanted to release his college records. The Boston Globe discovered that Bush actually had higher grades at Yale and also had higher SAT scores. (Bush’s scores were also higher than those of Senator Bill Bradley, another liberal often described as learned and brilliant.)

But the “conservatives are dunces” mantra goes well beyond George W. Bush. Liberals take it for granted — literally — that Democratic presidents are brighter than Republicans. Ronald Reagan was famously called an “amiable dunce” by Clark Clifford, an opinion widely shared among the Georgetown social set.

Popular culture has greatly contributed to the myth of ignorant conservatives and enlightened liberals. One study by a group of academics found that by examining 124 characters in 47 popular political films spanning five decades, liberals were routinely depicted as “more intelligent, friendly and good” than conservatives.

The arrogance of some liberals in this regard is astonishing. You don’t even have to be highly educated yourself to complain about how uneducated conservatives are. Michael Moore, college dropout, travels all over Europe talking about how “idiotic and uneducated” conservatives are. He also said: “Once you settle for a Ronald Reagan, then it’s easy to settle for a George Bush, and once you settle for a George Bush, then it’s real easy to settle for Bush II. You know, this should be evolution, instead it’s devolution. What’s next?”

Professor Bruce Fleming, a self-professed liberal, explains this liberal attitude perfectly. “All of us are ignorant of many things. It’s just that the liberal here thinkss he knows what the conservative is ignorant of.”

This sublime confidence in their own superiority leads to a closed-minded insistence that liberals know what is right. Scholars at Stanford, the University of Illinois and Williams conducted four studies on the subject of “asymmetric insight.” Basically, this is the notion that some people claim to know more than others. Surveys were conducted with hundreds of students. Among their findings: Liberals are much more likely to believe that their knowledge of conservatives and their arguments surpasses that of conservatives themselves. The results were similar when it came to the abortion issue. Abortion rights advocates claimed to have greater knowledge and insight than those who are pro-life.

Read the whole thing at the link above(or read the whole, whole thing by buying the book-not that I would expect many of you to do that )

[3894]

Apples to oranges, sleepyjeff. The Yale study cited in my post did not study intelligence.

Come closer and I'll tell you something. Areally reliable source who had to do some work for Gore when veep said that Gore is not smart.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by 3894

Apples to oranges, sleepyjeff. The Yale study cited in my post did not study intelligence.

The article really wasn't about intelligence either.

Come closer and I'll tell you something. Areally reliable source who had to do some work for Gore when veep said that Gore is not smart.

[sleepyjeff]

double post

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by 3894

There's no arguing with conservatives...No, seriously, scientific studies prove it. Quick quote:

Today, one of my born-again (when it suits her) Christian conservative clients came in and immediately launched into a diatribe against Obama. I cut her off, warning that I was not interested in discussing politics and would prefer to talk about anything else, but she persisted. According to her, Obama is a Muslim who is only pretending to be Christian, and he has actually referred to himself many times as a Messiah. She cites her sources as Hannity and O'Reilly, so I suggested she go to Snopes and check it out for herself. I then suggested that she discontinue that line of 'conversation', or I would could not guarantee the outcome of her service- and I meant it. I was soooo incredibly pissed, and that is the second time this has happened in a week. Last Friday, it was another retired Repub who was railing against the socialized medicine she was just sure Obama was going to foist on us all. (I had also warned her I didn't want to talk politics, but she ignored me). So, I said I agreed with her completely; programs like Medicare were impoverishing doctors and health facilities, and old people needed to suck it up and purchase insurance like the rest of us. That shut her up quickly- she's on Medicare, and I don't think it even occurred to her that it was a social plan.

[Ghoulish Delight]

To be fair, can a group of people for whom that was all new information really be considered a good sampling?

[Alex]

Having spent a fair portion of my life getting myself into arguments with people on all sides of the political spectrum, my perception is that most people, when presented with evidence contrary to an already held belief simply dig in their heels deeper.

[Morrigoon]

That's why you have to confront them with evidence in line with their views first, and show them the contrary result. Get them in yes mode first.

[Tom]

The NY Daily News is reporting that Michael Bloomberg is planning on running for a third term as mayor, despite the fact that NY has a term limits law limiting him to two terms (he plans on getting the law changed before running).

Link