Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zax who wrote (842373)	3/12/2015 5:34:41 PM
From: locogringo	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1577924

Liberals might be happier than conservatives after all, study finds Of course they are, when you live in a fabricated "LA LA LAND" without facts and reality. Conservatives have to pay for your food, medical care, 70% of your rent, your cars, and utilities. Of course you leeches are happy. Wake up at noon, pop the ripple cork, and smoke and snort and bang away to increase the food stamp payments.

To: zax who wrote (842373)	3/12/2015 6:51:11 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1577924

New study points to conservatives being unhappier people, but also dishonest with themselves about it, LOL. *Liberals might be happier than conservatives after all, study finds* I believe it. I think Ted Cruz exemplifies the conservative personality.

To: zax who wrote (842373)	3/12/2015 7:54:22 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1577924

That article admits studies shows conservatives are happier. washingtonpost.com When asked if they're happy, political conservatives are more likely to say yes than liberals. But a new study suggests that liberals might be the happier bunch -- and conservatives might just want to look good. ....... Previous work on the "happiness gap" between liberals and conservatives took a relatively simple route: Just asking. Study subjects were asked to self-report their own happiness levels. In several academic studies* (* and one by Pew) conservatives repeatedly came out as generally cheerier than their left-wing countrymen. ........ Then goes on to argue its not true cause conservatives only think they're happy cause it's bothersome for liberals that studies show them as troubled. In fact, studies show conservatives are more charitable (even donating more blood) and have better sex lives. Liberalism is a self-defeating idealogy virtually designed to instill bitterness and resentment.

To: zax who wrote (842373)	3/12/2015 7:57:26 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1577924

Don't listen to the liberals - Right-wingers really are nicer people, latest research shows By Peter Schweizer Last updated at 10:25 PM on 14th June 2008 George Orwell once wrote that politics was closely related to social identity. 'One sometimes gets the impression,' he wrote in The Road To Wigan Pier, 'that the mere words socialism and communism draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, nature-cure quack, pacifist and feminist in England'. Orwell was making an observation. But today a whole body of academic research shows he was correct: your politics influence the manner in which you live your life. And the news is not so good for those on the political Left. There is plenty of data that shows that Right-wingers are happier, more generous to charities, less likely to commit suicide - and even hug their children more than those on the Left. In my experience, they are also more honest, friendly and well-adjusted. Much of this springs from the destructive influence of modern liberal ideas. In the Sixties, we saw the beginning of a narcissism and self-absorption that gripped the Left and has not let go. The full-scale embrace of the importance of self-awareness, self-discovery and being 'true' to oneself, along with the idea that the State should care for the less fortunate, has created a swathe of Left-wing people who want to outsource their obligations to others. The statistics I base this on come from the General Social Survey, America's premier social research database, but they are just as relevant to the UK, as I believe political belief systems drive one's attitudes, regardless of where you happen to live. Those surveyed were asked: 'Is it your obligation to care for a seriously injured/ill spouse or parent, or should you give care only if you really want to?' Of those describing themselves as 'conservative', 71 per cent said it was. Only 46 per cent of those on the Left agreed. To the question: 'Do you get happiness by putting someone else's happiness ahead of your own?', 55 per cent of those who said they were 'very conservative' said Yes, compared with 20 per cent of those who were 'very liberal'. It's been my experience that conservatives like to talk about things outside of themselves while progressives like to discuss themselves: how they are feeling and what their desires are. That might make for a good therapy session but it's not much fun over a long dinner. Research also indicates those on the Left are less interested in getting married: 30 per cent of those who were 'very liberal' said it was important, in contrast to 65 per cent of Right-wingers. The same holds true when the question of having children arises. Progressive American cities such as San Francisco and Seattle have become 'childless liberal boutique' cities, according to Joel Kotkin, an expert on urban development. While 69 per cent of those who called themselves 'very conservative' said it was important for them to have children, only 38 per cent of corresponding liberals agreed. Many on the Left proudly proclaim themselves 'child-free'. While some do not want children on ecological grounds, much has to do with the fact that they simply don't want the responsibility of having a child. When asked by the World Values Survey whether parents should sacrifice their own well-being for those of their children, those on the Left were nearly twice as likely to say No. 'I'll have babies if you pay for them,' one Leftie blogger said on the social networking website yelp.com. Billionaire Ted Turner, a self-described socialist, publicly regrets that he had five children. 'If I was doing it over again, I wouldn't have had that many,' he says. 'But I can't shoot them now they're here.' All of this should not come as a surprise to anyone watching the drift of progressive thinking over the past 40 years. Starting with British anthropologist Edmund Leach, who said: 'Far from being the basis of a good society, the family, with its narrow privacy and tawdry secrets, is the source of all its discontents', feminists, progressives and others have seen the family as an oppressive force. Feminist Gloria Steinem says on behalf of women: 'The truth is, finding ourselves brings more excitement and wellbeing than anything romance can offer.' Linda Hirshman tells women not to have more than one baby so they can concentrate on a career. 'Find the money,' she advises. Ah, the important things in life. Even when they do have children, research carried out at Princeton University shows liberals hug them less than conservatives. My wife thinks they're too busy hugging trees. Most surprising of all is reputable research showing those on the Left are more interested in money than Right-wingers. Both the World Values Survey and the General Social Survey reveal Left-wingers are more likely to rate 'high income' as an important factor in choosing a job, more likely to say 'after good health, money is the most important thing', and agree with the statement 'there are no right or wrong ways to make money'. You don't need to explain that to Doug Urbanski, the former business manager for Left-wing firebrand and documentary-maker Michael Moore. 'He [Moore] is more money-obsessed than anyone I have known - and that's saying a lot,' claims Urbanski. How is it possible that those who seem to renounce the money culture are more interested in money? One might suggest those on the Left are simply being more honest when they answer such questions. The problem is that there is no evidence to support this. Instead, I believe the results have more to do with the powerful appeal of progressive thinking. Many on the Left apparently believe that espousing liberal ideals is a 'get out of jail free' card that inoculates them from the evils of the money culture. Cherie Blair, for example, never lets her self-proclaimed socialist attitudes stop her making money. She is even willing to be paid (as she was in Australia) to appear at charity events. Such progressives, sure that they are not overly interested in money and possessions, believe they are then free to acquire them. Studies also indicate that those on the Left are less likely to give to charity or to volunteer their time to charity. When they do support charity, it is often less the sort of organisation that helps people and more one that advocates political action. Uber-progressive Barbra Streisand gives lots of money to charity but the largest recipients are not organisations that feed the hungry - the cash goes to advocacy organisations such as The Bill Clinton Foundation. Similarly, Michael Moore gives to film festivals and elite cultural institutions such as the Lincoln Center - but barely a penny goes to needy people. Progressives see economic equality as the highest form of social justice, so they have become obsessed with questions of income inequality. Can there be any surprise then that those on the Left tend to be more envious and jealous of successful people? That's what studies indicate. Professor James Lindgren, of Northwestern University in Chicago, found those who favour the redistribution of wealth are more envious than those who do not. Scholars at Oxford and Warwick Universities found the same sort of behaviour when they conducted an experiment. Setting up a computer game that allowed people to accumulate money, they gave participants the option to spend some of their own money in order to take away more from someone else. The result? Those who considered themselves 'egalitarians' (i.e. Left of centre) were much more willing to give up some of their own money if it meant taking more money from someone else. Much of the desire to distribute wealth and higher taxation is motivated by envy - the desire to take more from someone else - and bitterness. The culprit here is not those on the Left who embrace progressive ideas but the ideas themselves. As John Maynard Keynes reminds us: 'The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and wrong, are more powerful than commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else.' Or, as the American theorist Richard Weaver once declared: 'Ideas have consequences.' And it seems that today modern progressive ideas can often bring out the worst in people. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026442/Dont-listen-liberals--Right-wingers-really-nicer-people-latest-research-shows.html#ixzz2TI7ur9c0

To: zax who wrote (842373)	3/12/2015 7:59:30 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1577924

Are Right-wingers nicer than Left-wingers? By Harry Mount Society Last updated: April 10th, 2013 Not very nice I don't mean in a Nazis vs Communists, Hitler vs Stalin, way. I mean in a moderate way: Conservative activists vs Labour activists, you might say. It's difficult to imagine Conservative activists behaving like the people who celebrated Margaret Thatcher's death in Glasgow and Brixton. That's partly because it's hard to think of any Left-wing leader who had as powerful an effect on the country as she did. But, still, between them, Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan – with quite a lot of help from Edward Heath – led to a disastrous decline in British fortunes in the 1970s, as opposed to the Thatcher economic turnaround. But their deaths barely raised a whimper, let alone a distasteful celebration. Some Right-wingers will, presumably, feel a little private inner glow at the death of a properly wicked dictator, like Fidel Castro; but it's difficult to imagine them taking to the streets to celebrate with such public gusto. Why is this? Part of the reason is that conservatives accept the unfairnesses and shortcomings of the world as an inevitable reflection of the human condition. In their understanding that public spending cannot be infinite, that there must be some realistic restraint on altruistic impulses, they are often thought to be ruthless and heartless. That supposed heartlessness is, more often than not, pragmatism. Margaret Thatcher didn't actively want to put lots of miners out of work, as those who celebrated her death might think. What she saw, in an utterly pragmatic way, was that there was no economic sense in propping up a failing industry – she didn't close down the mines; she refused to go on subsidising them. If they had been making money, they would still be open today. The knowledge that their pragmatic, economic good sense is often perceived as being heartless often makes conservatives rather diffident, self-effacing and apologetic – all nice characteristics (although, it must be said, Margaret Thatcher, for all her personal kindness and decency, didn't have these particular qualities in abundance). It's the other way round on the Left. Because you are always advocating milk and honey for the oppressed – even if that milk and honey is economically unaffordable or impossible to get hold of – you are protected by a forcefield of advertised niceness. With your public goodness established, you can then allow yourself all the personal bile in the world – by, say, opening a bottle of champagne on the death of a frail, 87-year-old woman. Which is better? Public niceness and personal nastiness, or public pragmatism and personal niceness? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/harrymount/100068819/are-right-wingers-nicer-than-left-wingers/

To: zax who wrote (842373)

3/12/2015 8:03:01 PM

From: Brumar89

1 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

Respond to of 1577924

What Liberals Really Respect

By Selwyn Duke

"I think he did the right thing," said the man, emphatically, in reference to Bill Clinton's 1990s infidelity with Monica Lewinsky. The sentiment, expressed during a conversation I had some years ago, was really no surprise. You see, the fellow was a fine specimen of his political species.

In every civilization, you have, to use psychological terminology, well-adjusted individuals and dysfunctional ones. Of course, dividing people into two groups will always be problematic, as moral status is a continuum. As we walking, talking anachronisms like to say, we're all sinners; it's just a matter of degree. Nonetheless, some people do try to exercise virtue in their lives, while others are so immersed in vice that they could mistake it for virtue. However you characterize it, though, in our time, the dysfunctional vice-lovers are described by what is another lacking term: liberals.

Many people believe that things such as politics can be compartmentalized; they act as if ideology is akin to taste. They figure that, sure, liberals believe some different things, but, really, they're people just like us. Well, of course they're people. But the fact is that if someone believes differently from you, he isn't "just like" you; for this to be true belief would have to be irrelevant. In reality, however, all movements, good and evil, start with belief. And a devout liberal is no more like a traditionalist American than is a pious Muslim.

I remember another very liberal man I knew who, when explaining his desire to vote for Democrats in Florida, said that their opponents seemed "too honest." You may wonder why honesty, of all things, would turn anyone off. Is it that he suspected that those politicians' exuding of sincerity was artifice? This is often part of it, actually. You see, people tend to assume that others operate by the same principles they do (which is another reason why traditionalists can mistake liberals for normal); the man in question, for instance, is someone who at one time cheated a certain business I know of out of some rental fees while working on its grounds as an independent contractor. His justification was, "I deserve it." "Hey, everyone's got a game. So don't pretend to be a goody-two-shoes," the feeling-thinking goes. But there is more to it.

One time I read an internet posting made by a woman who had stopped renting to some Christians who had been tenants at her property. Her reason?

They made her feel bad about herself.

People who have no intention of dispensing with vice don't like moral standards they pale in comparison to -- which is why moral relativism is all the rage today, and why there is rage at Christianity -- and they don't like moral standard-bearers they pale in comparison to, either. Why do you think the Bible states, "What fellowship hath light with darkness? The darkness hates the light"? Immorality loves company as much as does misery -- just not the kind of company whose light makes one more miserable.

This explains something that has befuddled some people Comments: the fact that while Senate hopeful Elizabeth "Fauxcahontas" Warren should be hopeless after revelations surfaced that she advantaged herself by lying about her heritage, she's actually neck-and-neck in the polls with her opponent, Scott Brown. It's no surprise, though. Her state, Massachusetts, elected and re-elected reprobate Ted Kennedy -- despite his decadent, drunken romps, one of which resulted in the death of a young woman -- until his death. It wasn't just his name recognition, either. Massachusettsans re-elected Barney Frank even after it was found that his homosexual lover -- a male prostitute Frank had initially hired for sex -- was running a call-boy operation out of the congressman's home. But even that was small potatoes. While Louisiana ex-governor Edwin Edwards (D) once said, "The only way I'll lose an election is if I get caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy," Massachusetts's standards are a bit different. Former Bay State congressman Gerry Studds did have a sexual affair with a teenage boy -- and was re-elected six more times until he, like Frank, decided to retire.

Of course, many who vote for such vice-squad leaders would justify it by saying that they're "open-minded," and these same people are so open-minded that their brains have fallen out. They would also say that such politicians reflect their "values," and they certainly do. But whatever other visceral reasons there may be for unreasoned decisions, there is this one: the Kennedys and Franks and Studdses and Warrenses of the world certainly won't make their constituents feel bad about themselves. And these men in the mirror definitely aren't too honest for a liberal to believe, even though little they say is true.

As for Warren, why would liberals care that she lied to get ahead in the system? Everyone's got a game. Remember? It's what rank-and-file liberals do themselves. Just like the man I mentioned earlier who cheated the business. Just like the former owner of that business who, although a devout Democrat who supported high-taxing politicians and even hosted one at his home, made it known that he expected his employees to cheat on their taxes and that if you didn't, you were an "a*****e." And just like George Soros, who has justified his unethical currency trading by saying that the system itself is immoral. So simply do it. Play the game. Just don't pretend to be a Boy Scout. And this brings us to what liberals really respect.

Many years ago, the subject of the Boy Scouts came up on Bill Maher's old show Politically Incorrect. With his usual smirk, Maher at one point offered the following left-handed defense of the group (I'm paraphrasing): "The nerds need some place to go." Of course, what he fancies being nerdy is called something else by us anachronisms: virtue.

Now, there are reasons why liberals don't recognize or respect virtue. First, they usually don't believe in it, since liberals are relativists and virtue is an absolute. This is why moderns will speak of "values" and only rarely of "virtues." But then there is another thing. To acknowledge the light displayed by the Boy Scouts or something else liberals pooh-pooh would be to admit their own darkness. So it's better to just portray virtue as nerdiness at best and, at worst, as intolerance.

So with the appearance of virtue being only a façade because, really, everyone's got a game, what can liberals respect?

Playing the game well.

This is what people such as the fellow in my first paragraph respected about Bill Clinton: he played the game. He outmaneuvered his adversaries. He was a master of the con. Ah... It's sort of like private eye Jim Rockford's fast talking to extract information or the perfectly executed con in the film The Sting. It's just so...cool. It is the right thing. And so did Elizabeth Warren do the right thing -- when you fancy the right thing the wrong one.

Now it may be clearer why it has been said that "in a democracy, people get the government they deserve" and why Benjamin Franklin wrote, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." It also may be clearer how you can make yourself needed if you aspire to be a master: sell vice to the people and make sure they deserve you. Initiate them into sin with vile sex education in grade schools, co-ed dorms and corrupted college professors and courses, and thoroughly decadent popular culture. And pave the way for the acceptance of vice by spreading moral relativism. "Hey, who's to say it's wrong? If it feels good, do it."

Lest I be misunderstood, I don't say that every single liberal is of the typical mold; there is also the anomalous, deer-in-the-headlights, starry-eyed sort who fits the stereotype of the naïve but misguided liberal. Nonetheless, there is a reason why studies show liberals to generally be greedier, more covetous, more selfish, less charitable, and less loving than conservatives, as Peter Schweizer's piece "Don't listen to the liberals -- Right-wingers really are nicer people..." outlines well. But it's not that, as Schweizer writes, "your politics influence the manner in which you live your life"; it's that your moral and philosophical foundation influences both how you live your life and your politics.

For a long time now in the West, the dominant philosophical disorder has been godlessness and relativism, and it has always correlated with some dark political ideology. It was twisted French Revolution ideals in one place, Nazism in another, and communism in yet another. In our time and place, it is known as liberalism.

Thus, it's no surprise that we see in our nation such social disorder -- many of the people in our nation are morally disordered. And if civilization is to survive in any form worthy of the name, liberalism -- and, most importantly, its root causes -- must die.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/what_liberals_really_respect.html#ixzz1x6eXTSWY

From: bentway

I think abortion IS murder, but I really don't care, because there are too many humans on Earth as it is, so abortion is a good thing as it reduces those numbers.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=24649087

From: bentway

... I've had ALL my children aborted (I hope). http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=25848528

From: bentway

I'm against giving children acid (although I know a very few parents who have), but I've dosed a few assholes! I'd LOVE to take an LSD crowbar to Ten's closed mind!

Message 27735910

To: zax who wrote (842373)	3/12/2015 8:06:01 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577924

Sex and politics - liberals have problems doing that right too: Study probes SEX habits of Republicans and Democrats By Caroline May Published: 11:55 PM 02/02/2012 \| Updated: 12:55 AM 02/03/2012 A new study, “Singles in America,” has found that there is more to the correlation between SEX and politics than just Newt Gingrich’s wandering eye and Bill Clinton’s intern proclivities. The study released Thursday was funded by the online dating site Match.com, in association with biological anthropologist Dr. Helen Fisher, SEX and relationship therapist Dr. Laura Berman, evolutionary biologist Dr. Justin R. Garcia of The Kinsey Institute at Indiana University and the Institute for Evolutionary Studies at Binghamton University. The survey of over 5,000 singles offered some interesting revelations about the differences in the SEX lives of Democrats and Republicans. According to the survey, conservative Republicans are more likely than any other group to be very satisfied with SEX once married — however, in the last 12 months the group had the least amount of SEX. The Daily Beast, which got an advanced look at the total results, further reported that more than half of respondents identified as conservative Republicans said they climaxed almost every time they had SEX — as opposed to just 40 percent of liberal Democrats. [ Heh, they don't even know how to do that right. ] In the same way Democrats and Republicans look for different traits in political candidates, so too do they in a hunt for different traits in a mate. According to the survey, Democrats seek out partners “with a sense of humor, similar lifestyle to their own, a sense of independence and someone whom they consider to be their equal.” Republicans are more focused on stability, “they’re searching for someone with the same background and political party as their own who is interested in marriage.” Nine out of ten respondents further noted that there are “no acceptable excuses” for politicians who cheat on their spouses. Read more: <A href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/02/study-probes-sex-habits-of-republicans-and-democrats/#ixzz1lLB1RxnF" target=_blank>http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/02/study-probes-sex-habits-of-republicans-and-democrats/#ixzz1lLB1Rxn... Republicans Have More Orgasms, According to Match.com SEX SurveyFeb 2, 2012 2:11 AM EST Does voting for Mitt Romney making you better in bed? Jessica Bennett gets an exclusive first look at what a new Match.com survey of 6,000 singles tells us about gender, politics, and SEX. There are certain things we hold to be self-evident about men and women in relationships: men are SEX.html' target='_blank'>obsessed with sex. Women like to talk about their feelings. Women want to marry, men want to screw around. And the older you get, the more desperate you become. It’s stereotype, of course—perpetuated by women’s magazines and the like. But if you believe the results of a new Match.com survey, the truth isn’t just more subtle, it’s the opposite extreme. Men, it seems, are the ones who want to settle down. Bad SEX is a deal-breaker for women. Gay men are the true romantics. And, apparently, it’s conservative Republicans who are getting the most from their bedroom rendezvous. Match.com gave The Daily Beast an exclusive first look at the results of its second annual Singles in America survey—a dive into the values, attitudes, and sexual patterns of 6,000 American singles. Match has a natural interest in understanding these dating patterns, of course—the online dating site has built an empire on pairing singles with their “perfect” mate. But the survey, of singles 21 and older, was not conducted among Match users, or by Match itself—it is nationally representative, in conjunction with an evolutionary biologist, a SEX therapist, and the Institute for Evolutionary Studies at Binghamton University. Anthropologist Helen Fisher, the survey’s resident adviser, says it is the largest comprehensive study of singles ever. So what does it reveal? A few of the most interesting findings: Republican Lead the Polls—In Orgasm Yep, you heard that right. Republicans—and conservative Republicans, for that matter—reported the highest frequency of orgasm of all of the survey respondents, despite having the least amount of SEX. More than half of those who identified as conservative Republicans said they reached climax almost every time they had SEX, compared with just 40 percent of liberal Democrats. Sure, these answers are self-reported, but the survey was conducted anonymously online. What reason do they have to lie? ............. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/02/republicans-have-more-orgasms-according-to-match-com-sex-survey.html

To: zax who wrote (842373)	3/12/2015 8:09:21 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577924

... In his best-selling book, "Makers and Takers," Peter Schweitzer says liberals hold different values that most Americans. Cheating on your taxes is not considered a drawback for left-wing politicians. Schweizer poured through tax records, scholarly research, opinion surveys and private records to develop a profile of the typical liberal Liberals, Schweizer writes, are, in the aggregate: ... less honest. Liberals are more likely to believe that it's okay to be dishonest or deceptive, cheat on their taxes (and their spouse), keep money that doesn't belong to them, and sell a used car with a faulty transmission to a family member. ... more selfish. Liberals are much more likely to think about themselves first and less willing to make sacrifices for others. They are less interested in caring for a physically ill or elderly family member, and more concerned with ensuring that their own needs are met. ... more focused on money. Liberals are much more likely to report that money is important to them, that they don't earn enough money, and that money is what matters in a job. They are also more likely to be envious of others. ... less knowledgeable about civic affairs and economics. Despite claims that conservatives are ignorant, studies and surveys show that conservatives and Republicans tend to know more about public affairs, have a better understanding of economics, and do better on word association tests. If that doesn't sound like the new Obama administration, I don't know what does. http://www.redcounty.com/node/23778 .... With the embarrassing number of hopeful Obama appointments running into tax cheating problems (the latest being Ron Kirk), it's natural to wonder if evasion by high profile leftists is illustrative of a real world trend, or just a string of unfortunate anecdotes. [Rangel, Geithner, Franken, Bill Richardson - all tax cheats ] The GSS provides some relief for that wonder. It provides the results for 2,418 people queried on whether or not cheating on taxes is wrong, by political orientation. The first graphic from the GSS shows the distribution of responses. The second graph shows the mean tax compliance score, computed by designating "not wrong" as 1, "a bit wrong" as 2, "wrong" as 3, and "seriously wrong" as 4, and then averaging the responses for each of the seven categories of political orientation (click for higher resolution). Politics Compliance Strong Lib 2.70 Liberal 3.05 Weak Lib 3.00 Moderate 3.07 Weak Con 3.14 Conservative 3.35 Strong Con 3.27 The standard deviation for the dataset is .76, so the difference between self-described conservatives and extreme liberals is nearly one full SD. Amalgamating the responses into three categories yields one-third a SD between liberals and conservatives: Politics Compliance Liberal 3.00 Moderate 3.07 Conservative 3.25 Liberals do not consider cheating on taxes to be as morally problematic as conservatives do. This presents an obvious moral quandary of its own, as, putatively less surprisingly, liberals are more likely than conservatives are to favor greater amounts of taxation and wealth redistribution. The purest question the GSS asks with regard to a respondent's philosophical position on taxation is, "If the government had a choice between reducing taxes or spending more on social programs like health care, social security, and unemployment benefits, which do you think it should do?" The GSS provides results for 970 respondents to this question by political orientation: Politics Spend more Strong Lib 86.5% Liberal 81.1% Weak Lib 62.8% Moderate 66.7% Weak Con 49.1% Conservative 41.6% Strong Con 41.4% There is a full standard deviation difference between extreme liberals and extreme conservatives on this most standard of political issues. Combining the shades of liberalism and conservatism into a single category, more than half a SD still separates those on the left from those on the right: Politics Spend more Liberal 72.1% Moderate 66.7% Conservative 44.8% Attitude is not behavior, and I am unaware of any studies on the political persuasions of convicted tax cheats, but as a self-described empirical paleoconservative, it is difficult not to find parodiable humor mixed with irritation in discovering that those most likely to favor increased taxation and redistributive economics are also the most likely to approve of illegally acting to avoid having to suffer on the contributive side of the equation. GSS variables used: POLVIEWS, TAXCHEAT, TAXSPEND Parenthetically, this shows the presumption that the liberal-conservative spectrum as represented in the GSS is a gauge of positions on social issues rather than economic ones is a stretch at best. Optimally, the GSS will ask a couple of questions on political orientation in the future in place of the one now asked. Cliched though it may be, separately inquiring about both a respondent's social and economic liberalism or conservatism would accomplish this. Notice, too, that the graph's parameters are set from 40% to 90%--even among self-described conservatives, nearly half of people favor more spending by government over the reduction of tax rates. Too many people have faith in Leviathan. ** However, in Freedonomics, John Lott shows that Republican criminals are as elusive as leprechauns (p184): [Based on a Public Opinion Strategies survey] I found that felons were 36% more likely than non-felons to have voted for Kerry over Bush and 37% more likely to be registered Democratic [after controlling for socio-cultural factors like race, gender, educational attainment, etc]. ... While not all felons may be as Democratic as those in Washington State, the survey indicates that the previous estimates understated how frequently felons vote Democratic. Remarkably, it looks as if virtually all felons are Democrats. Felons are not just like everyone else. And the fact that felons are even more likely to vote Democratic than previously believed surely guarantees that some Democratic operatives will continue their efforts to get them to the polls. http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2009/03/liberals-and-tax-cheating.html

To: zax who wrote (842373)	3/12/2015 8:09:42 PM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB locogringo Respond to of 1577924

Liberals Like To Cheat On Their Taxes, Collect Welfare Illegally • June 3, 2008 Share \| Liberals love to advocate government policies that cost lots and lots of tax dollars. But when it comes to paying in those tax dollars in order to fund said policies it would seem as though most liberals are in favor of fudging and not paying their fair share. They’re also, apparently, in favor of taking more than their fair share in entitlements too: Is it OK to cheat on your taxes? A total of 57 percent of those who described themselves as “very liberal” said yes in response to the World Values Survey, compared with only 20 percent of those who are “very conservative.” When Pew Research asked whether it was “morally wrong” to cheat Uncle Sam, 86 percent of conservatives agreed, compared with only 68 percent of liberals. Ponder this scenario, offered by the National Cultural Values Survey: “You lose your job. Your friend’s company is looking for someone to do temporary work. They are willing to pay the person in cash to avoid taxes and allow the person to still collect unemployment. What would you do?” Almost half, or 49 percent, of self-described progressives would go along with the scheme, but only 21 percent of conservatives said they would. When the World Values Survey asked a similar question, the results were largely the same: Those who were very liberal were much more likely to say it was all right to get welfare benefits you didn’t deserve. The World Values Survey found that those on the left were also much more likely to say it is OK to buy goods that you know are stolen. Studies have also found that those on the left were more likely to say it was OK to drink a can of soda in a store without paying for it and to avoid the truth while negotiating the price of a car. Liberalism is all about the redistribution of wealth. Rather than thinking that everyone should earn their own wealth, liberals think that those who earn most of the wealth should have that wealth taken away and redistributed to those who don’t earn it. Given that, it’s not surprising that these same liberals would have such a cavalier attitude toward other people’s money. http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/liberals_like_to_cheat_on_their_taxes_collect_welfare_illegally/

To: zax who wrote (842373)	3/12/2015 8:13:39 PM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB locogringo Respond to of 1577924

5 Reasons Liberals Are Such Unpleasant People To Be Around John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Right Wing News Apr 03, 2012 Don't get me wrong. Not every conservative has a winning personality and not every liberal is a toothache in search of a mouth to inhabit. In fact, one of the single nicest people I know is a liberal (Hi, Julie Joyce!) Yet and still, it's not a reach to say that most liberals, especially the ones that are politically active, are just generally difficult to get along with. It's not just me saying that either. I've interviewed more than one big name conservative who has told me that they moved over to the right in large part because the other liberals they were around were such insufferable human beings. John Hawkins: ...I always find the stories of people who ideologically move from the left to the right to be fascinating and I noticed that you used to be a liberal who even worked for Ron Dellums... Michael Medved: Ron Dellums helped to make me a conservative. John Hawkins: How so? What caused you to move to the right? Michael Medved: First of all, even at the time I went to work for Dellums, I knew better. Because I was never that far out. I mean I supported Robert Kennedy, not Eugene McCarthy. John Hawkins: Dellums was even a Communist, wasn't he? Michael Medved: Yeah, he basically was. I worked for Dellums for 6 weeks and then I couldn't stand it anymore. Because I think he so clearly demonstrated some of the most malign and malevolent tendencies of the American Left. Corruption, drug use, Communist sympathies if not Communist party membership. *John Hawkins:* A related question, I guess you would have been pretty surprised when you said in the book that while Christians "hold religious beliefs against homosexuality," they are some of the most tolerant, understanding, and kind people I have ever met. So was that a big surprise for you when you weren't getting condemned? Tammy Bruce: Yes, it was; it was shocking. For me it was quite life-changing in my sense of how I viewed the world and I was also, when it comes to my view of Christians, quite surprised by how happy they were. I mean, I remember being on the left; no one is happy, trust me. They (are the) biggest group of miserable people you would ever want to meet. Everything is wrong, everything is going bad, everyone is after you, everyone wants to get you, people are building camps. To speak with finally, on talk radio, with Christians, I was struck first by the genuine happiness from these people and also the fact that even though they disagreed with me, finally I was having conversations with people who were curious, disagreed with me, but didn't want to hurt me, were interested in persuading me, and it was quite a revelation, I have to say. I owe my beginning in talk radio to that kind of --- it's the only place really where you can have that kind of exchange between someone like myself and conservative Christians and have it be safe and have it be really life-transforming. Why are liberals so unpleasant to be around? 1) They're unhappy: Study after study shows that conservatives are happier people than liberals. The difference can be staggering. In 2004, people who said they were conservative or very conservative were nearly twice as likely to say they were very happy as people who called themselves liberal or very liberal (44 percent versus 25 percent). Conservatives were only half as likely to say they were not too happy (9 versus 18 percent). Unhappy people are generally disagreeable because when you're miserable, you tend to become very selfish. If you want an example of how that works, go hit yourself on the hand with a hammer and while you're writhing in agony, see how much time you spend thinking about helping other people as opposed to wishing you hadn't smashed your own hand. 2) Liberals don't care as much about tradition: Although it goes without saying that people who worship change for change's sake don't care very much about customs, you might wonder why that would make such a big difference. Well, as Thomas Sowell has noted, "Civilization has been aptly called a 'thin crust over a volcano.' The anointed are constantly picking at that crust." In many cases, societal conventions represent the accumulated wisdom of previous generations. Through trial and error, they discovered that there are certain things you can do that help keep a society running well. There are reasons why people get together and sing Christmas carols in the town square, refuse to insult people immediately after they die, treat marriage as sacred, and don't turn funerals into campaign rallies. Because liberals tend to think they're smarter than all those old dead people simply by virtue of being liberal, they tend to ignore those conventions and create disorder and havoc around themselves in the process. 3) Liberals see people who disagree as evil: Liberals see themselves as part of a Manichean struggle in which they’re trying to create Utopia on earth while they’re being opposed by people who want to do evil for evil’s sake. In other words, liberals are about as complex as your average comic book from the fifties. As Charles Krauthammer has said, To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. When you attribute disagreements with Barack Obama to racism, opposition to gay marriage to homophobia, standing against abortion as hatred of women, and a desire to balance the budget to loathing of the poor, you have a hopelessly simplistic view of the world that makes you utterly impervious to reason. Stupid, you may be able to educate, but evil, you have to defeat -- and liberals are seldom picky about the means or the manners they use while trying to do so. 4) Liberals aren't very religious: Liberals are overwhelmingly either atheists or agnostics, people who don't take their religious beliefs very seriously in the first place, or people who allow their ideology to completely subvert their religious beliefs. This is no small matter because religion is one of the great civilizing forces. That's not to say that even sincere practitioners of a religion always do the right thing because as Rick Warren has noted, "The church is a hospital for sinners, not a hotel for saints." However, if you take human beings with open minds, put them in a pew and expose them to "Love thy neighbour as thyself" and "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" long enough, it will curb their nature and make them into much better people than they otherwise would have been. 5) Liberalism encourages arrogance: Liberals tend to believe they're brilliant, compassionate, moral, enlightened, perceptive, and courageous, not because of anything they've actually done, but just because they're liberal. When you completely divorce a person's self image from his behavior, it produces terrible results -- like liberals who hurl abuse at conservative women while believing that they're feminists or selfish left-wingers who've never given a dime to charity, but believe themselves to be much more compassionate than people who tithe 10% of their income. Now, on some level, liberals know this is all a big sham. But, even that can be problematic because unstable high self-esteem actually causes more bad behavior and violent behavior than low self-esteem. As Roy Baumeister noted in Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty, The sequence goes something like this. Someone tells you that you are not very competent at something. If you are a shame-prone person, you start to experience that sinking feeling that the other person may be right and this is not the only thing that you are bad at, and maybe you are just a worthless loser in general. You start to feel panic, anxiety, and misery, and your heart beats faster. To break free of those feelings, you reject the premise. You are not incompetent in the way the other person said. The other person had no right to say that to you, and he's completely wrong. Your feelings are now directed outward at him, instead of yourself, and the effects of your faster heartbeat and general arousal transfer into intense anger at the person who has so unfairly insulted you. You want to hit him. Congratulations! You've just graduated from "Interactions with Liberals 101." http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/04/03/5_reasons_liberals_are_such_unpleasant_people_to_be_around