Are Conservatives More Complex Than Liberals?

My conclusions are mostly correct because I am very well educated, run with well educated people, know all segments of society, and as a result have developed insight over the course of many decades.

What renders my judgment useless to you is that I am your implacable foe.

 

There is a strong correlation in state rankings of levels of education, earnings, general health, obesity, smoking, divorce rates, teenage pregnancy, and political party preference.






Of course, that could be merely coincidental.

 

Are these these the same genius's that told us Palin and Romney would be president?

 

You should listen to Fox "News" a lot more, son. That'll fix that little problem that you have with using facts that are based on reality.

 

Okay, I'll bite.

1) How do you explain the epidemic of welfare Democrats?

2) How can Democrats accuse Republicans of protecting the rich if it's the Democrats who make all the money?

 

Oh yes they do.

 

Rightists are very emotional folks. Thus, their abhorrence of objective climatological data when it conflicts with their ideological belief system.

Similarly, when presented with Willard's dismal presidential prospects in reliable polls leading up to the election, the more extreme actually rejected the empirical data and fantasized about a Willard triumph, as ludicrous as was such a prospect.

They're emotional folks, and their cerebral function frequently takes a back seat - and invariably fails to buckle up.

 

Not going to answer my questions, huh? Just going to make silly little partisan jabs like "Willard?"

 

I assume you are deliberately ignoring corporate welfare, but you'll still have to provide data to support your contention that there is some sort of epidemic first. I haven't seen any.

No one other than you has said that it is "Democrats who make all the money." That the very, very wealthy would allocate their political contributions to whichever party best served their interest is entirely logical. Why would anyone expect otherwise?

 

"Willard" is what appears on his birth certificate, and I don't pretend it's a fake.

 

Out of necessity, conservatives are clearly far more Dionysian than Apollonian in their contempt for objective data, but are far more "complex" and convoluted when tortuous mental manipulations are desperately demanded.

Example:

If you contend that federal largesse is excessive, how do you explain and justify that it is predominantly "red" states sucking at the federal taxpayer's teat with such consistent gusto?

Logic would seem to indicate that either the predominantly Republican politicians these states elect would vehemently forego federal aid and strive to dry up the flow, or that the voter in those states would elect Democrats supposedly more enamoured of such a regular benefaction.

Logic does not pertain. It is predominantly Republicans who grab the cash.

 

Well first I would be interested in examining the internals of that study. How are those numbers derived? What is counted as money going back to the States? Does it include non-State territories like DC, Guam, and Puerto Rico? Are we discussing transfer payments or funding for Federal projects or facilities?

But.... such a discussion might be bit too complex and nuanced for your purposes.

 

By no means. Feel free to present such additional data if you wish to contribute to the discussion. I would be quite interested.

 

Or rather they think they have the answers. Tend to be pro centralized government as a result.

 

Not really. I see a fairly even spread of logical and emotional people on each side.

On the left wing, we have gun-phobic and antisemitic statists primarily hailing from Europe, and on the right wing, we have religious fundamentalists from America.

 

Thinking about those states, most of them are states where farming is difficult. Others are currently in tough shape because mining was their major industry but regulations-passed by Democrats-depleted them. A few need major military bases and those numbers probably include military spending in the state.
If you're a poor farmer tired of working 100 hours a week for only slightly more than those welfare recipients downtown you naturally will vote for Republicans. If your an unemployed miner you're thankful for the unemployment check but you'd rather have your job back, so you vote for Republicans who promise deregulation.
The interesting thing about this election is that Obama won some states with a good economy and Republican governors, so independents credited Obama for their local economy rather than the Republicans who made it possible. Good state economies often come at the expense of neighboring states however. In my region states take turns creating gambling establishments to lure gamblers across the border or back home. Montana can't do that as easily.

 

That's by no means a negative. An inability to respect and reconcile both heart and head results in an incomplete human being.

"If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. The brain loses 5-10 percent of its weight between the ages of 20 and 90."​

 

There's a time and place for compassion, but like anything, it has rational limits.

 

You expose a strong bias that you strive to rationalize. Someone on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum from you could as easily spin an alternative, self-serving explanation. The fact is that all Washington politicians, regardless of Party affiliation or the boilerplate they spout, try to haul as much bacon to the folks back home as possible to enhance their chances for re-election. With the possible exception of Jeff Flake (R), that's the prevailing ethos.

 

Regulations on mining usually reflect environmental concerns. While it is true that our regulations have limited mining production due to costs, I don't think it's really in our long term interests to decrease environmental regulations to rejuvenate mining.

If we look at the areas of the world most focused on mining, they tend to be heavily polluted. Right now, China's mining industries are booming, but they also have horrendous air and water quality in the associated areas.

 

Just as compassion imbues cold calculation with a humanity befitting all seasons. (See Sermon on the Mount)

 

Ah, okay. So I guess urban poverty among minorities is just a liberal talking point. It's not actually real. Kind of makes you wonder why Democrats are so big on maintaining and expanding welfare programs.

Oh? So what were you implying here then?

By this logic, shouldn't we be electing 20 year old presidents? Clearly, they are the most competent for the job.

 

You presented the news article on the study. It's yours to provide the data. What you presented so far does not have enough information to draw the conclusions your are making.

 

Let us not discount those pesky safety regulations that Republicans often bemoan. Recall the Upper Big Branch Mine tragedy, and negligent Massey Energy's sizable political payoffs - 91% of which went to Republicans.

 

Only pseudo-intellectuals tend to be pro centralized govt. I held those snot nosed sentiments when I was an undergraduate, a professional student, and for a few years thereafter. Then I went to work for the federal govt. Boy was that an eye opener.

In any event, people with a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding tend to favor devolvement of most federal powers to the states. That's the only choice unless you want us to go figurative Mau Mau.