Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ – CNN.com.
It’s interesting to me how they restrict the description of liberalism and conservatism here. It’s merely a way to pervert the findings into what they wanted the survey to say socially.
The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines “liberal” in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.
“Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with,” he said.
This simply isn’t true. Conservatives, in my view, are in favor or PRIVATE resources being donated VOLUNTARILY to help others. Liberals on the other hand are more in favor or public, or governmental support taken forcibly from others, not necessarily themselves to help others.
I saw a study last year noting that conservatives gave more to charity than liberals. One way that liberals spun this was to say that it was because of the tax benefits they received from it, not from genuine concern for their fellow man.
Of course, religion is also talked about as being for those less intelligent. We’ll see how that turns out in the end, now won’t we?
Feds push for tracking cell phones | Politics and Law – CNET News
More and more privacy disappearing. Obama says we have no expectation of privacy when using our cell phones. I wonder if he feels the same about his expectation of privacy.
China PLA officers urge economic punch against U.S. | Reuters.
BEIJING (Reuters) – Senior Chinese military officers have proposed that their country boost defense spending, adjust PLA deployments, and possibly sell some U.S. bonds to punish Washington for its latest round of arms sales to Taiwan.
Oh, but there’s no such thing as too much spending. What could possibly happen? It’s not like some foreign power could have any influence over us just because we owe them billions of dollars!
Clyburn: ‘We’ve got to spend our way out of this recession’ – The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room.
Here’s another quote for you:
Some other Democrats have worried that without expanded spending on social programs and other elements of the budget, some people hit hardest by the recession would be disadvantaged by the budget.
In other words, how can we buy votes if you take away our spending money to buy them with? Those dems sure to love their socialist programs, don’t they?
On the way home from work today I was listening to Foxnews on XM and Beck played a part of one of Obama’s speeches. He was talking about his desire and plan to fundamentally change America. Now I know what I think he means by that and I really don’t like losing more freedom, and income, because of his wishes. He really doesn’t get it just as the rest of the so called progressives don’t. We need a fundamental change in leadership and more importantly a fundamental change in politics in America.
Sorry, Mr. President, there’s nothing wrong with the country. It’s guys like you who spout off about how we dumb Americans just don’t get understand your brand of socialism that are the problem. I’ll have to agree that far too many Americans don’t know their left from their right and their rights from their protections. The problem is that many of us do understand the problem and are becoming more vocal as you, Mr. President, take more and more freedom along with more and more money from individuals. The fundamental problem for you is that far to many of us do get it for you and your kind to be happy.
While I don’t agree with Objectivism as Ayn Rand does, I do believe that the basic premise of “Atlas Shrugged” is based on sound principles. When you remove the incentive for producers to produce, they will stop producing. History proves it over and over again. If you haven’t read “Atlas Shrugged“, you should. It’s very long but very well worth the time it takes to read it.