Liberals are, less honest, less generous, lazier, and more materialistic than conservatives

really venz, all one has to do is look around. the majority of the self proclaimed 99% fit the authors description of liberals to a t.

The funny thing he is, he appears to be criticizing some weird partisan book on the basis that it doesn't present any evidence for his claims.

Isn't that fucking exactly what he's doing here?

It's like he decided to take the approach, "fight fire with fire." Though I have to admit, I always thought it was a bit of a silly saying because you just end up with more fire. If you really want to fight fire, use water, or sand.

so maybe the book was based on personal observation and common sense? sorta like darwin and the galapagos. of course not all libs fit the description but plenty do. its really no worse than the way the left unfairly generalize, paint and portray the tea party or repbublicans:)

If it was a book based upon observation, then there would be little to no point in bringing up another "expert" to casually dismiss without discrediting. One would simply present the observations and draw forth a conclusion from them. Furthermore, this idea is hindered by the fact that Schweiner seems to avoid peer review by going strait to book. The purpose of peer review is so others can check your work and make sure that you are not, at best, smudging the facts. The very fact that he did not submit his work for peer review should be a clear sign that something is amiss if he is trying to write an argument with any kind of scientific/observational credibility.

Also, you do not address the issue of Schweiner's use of language. Schweiner does not use words that a person making a factual argument uses. He uses language that is dismissive of people with a different perspective and even goes so far as to misrepresent the credibility of the one example he uses so that this example looks incompetent, thus "proving" Schweiner's point.

Using the same tactic that Schweiner used in his introduction, I could claim, "Bill Gates does not know anything about computer operating systems because he dropped out of college, and therefor no one should ever pay any attention to Bill Gates if and when he offers his 'professional' opinion about computer operating systems." Sure, I left out the part where Bill Gates was the founder of Microsoft and made billions because of the software he developed, but anyone who knows nothing about Bill Gates (few people that there may be) will not know any better, and unless they decide to actually check up on who Bill Gates is, they will not likely question the validity of that comment.

As far as your statement about how the book portrays liberals in no worse a manner than the liberals portray tea ba... I mean the tea party and republicans, I will give you some credit there. The people who tend to make the news media, be it from either side of the isle, tend to be people who are jackasses and extreme cases. Overall though, the conservative side has given the media more ammunition for the proverbial firing squad as of late as compared to the liberal side. As to why, I don't think it is because there are more assholes and idiots on the conservative side, I just think that for the most part the assholes and idiots who are on the conservative side tend to be more vocal about being assholes and idiots than the assholes and idiots on the conservative side.

On a few final notes, I do not think that Darwin wrote in quite the same manner as Schweiner did when he wrote "On the Origin of Species." Nor did he use language that dismissed the opinions of other "experts" out of hand. Darwin was also pioneering a new theory in biological science. Schweiner is not pioneering a new theory, he is taking thoughts that he, and probably a fair number of his readers share, and is giving them "validity" in print by skewing information. It serves no purpose other than to make readers who share his own point of view feel good about themselves and their own point of view.

man are you feeling guilty or something:) you are way too obsessed with proving this mans claims as false. From my own observations i can also make the same claim. the liberal left has a large percentage of what his book describes. there are also some on the right who fit in with the same observation but from my experience the left is more so. if it doesnt fit you move on and be one of the productive few on your side. peace

I'll bite, what books from what authors on the lefty liberal side are as Schweiner's book describes?

I'm not saying that there are no liberal leaning books as Schweiner describes, I just want to know what books you know of that fit into that category.

all one has to do is open their eyes and look around. most who claim to be the self proclaimed 99% in the occupy movement are the type of liberal that schweizer describes in his book. of course again that is generalizing but for the most part true. why are you so hung up on this? let it go and move on. i release you from even remotely resembling the typical liberal as viewed by Schweizer. peace

If it is generalizing, but for the most part true, then you should have no problem producing specific examples from books.

You ask why I am hung up on this, the answer is simple. I'm trying to make you actually prove your point by providing specific examples instead of using blanket statements guarded by words like, "Of course again that is generalizing but for the most part true."

Thud, thud,thud, thud, thud, thud,thud,thud,thud,thud,

The sound of a reasonably intelligent person striking their head on a brick wall, trying to explain the process of determining objective (and verifiable) truth vs. a so-called "researcher" blowing unsubstantiated opinions and "facts" out of their ass, with no corresponding (or verifiable) basis in truth or reality.

Thud,thud,thud,thud,thud,...........

dude, all i have is my own observations as written here. the mans material is pretty right on for the most part. maybe youve been living in a dark hole too long. take career entitlement folks as another example. how many conservatives do you see in that group? the slouches who make up most of the self proclaimed 99% who are actually really only representing about 5% of society. they want something for nothing as well. common sense my friend

All you have are your own observations... that's cute.

If all I went on were my own observations, then I'd have to conclude that the general populace in Louisiana were ignorant, possibly inbred, hicks. I'm pretty sure that is, in fact, not true, but if I went by my own observations then I'd have to come to that conclusion. I'd also have to conclude that people in Texas nearly illiterate and do not know how to survive in the outdoors without an R.V. Again, I'm pretty sure that is not true, but that is what my observations would support.

Another thing, if I went by my own observations, I would have to conclude that you are partially correct, not many conservatives join the "career entitlement" group. But from what I've observed about conservatives on a personal level, I can conclude that is because they already have a career that they were "entitled" to. There are wonderful examples at a Juvenile parole house in Junction City Oregon of conservatives who receive a job via nepotism and the good ol' boys system even though they are in no way, shape, or form qualified for the job. Let me make this perfectly clear, people who did not have any prior training in handling pre adult criminals (including sex offenders and violent offenders), who had no educational background in the field, have jobs at this place because they guy who owns the facility likes to hire people who do not ask for higher wages and do not ask questions when he has people work overtime without compensating them in a legal manner. Completely government funded, but privately owned. And F.Y.I. a couple of extreme conservative people working there are taking also taking government aid to help get by, but they still think that the government is evil though and that they shouldn't have to pay taxes.

Whew, if I went just by my own observations, I'd have to assume that the majority of conservatives are hypocritical assholes and that the stereotypes about Louisiana and Texas were factual.

"the slouches who make up most of the self proclaimed 99% who are actually really only representing about 5% of society. they want something for nothing as well."

Yeah, they might not actually represent 99% of the population, but they sure as shit don't represent a measly 5%. An unscientific FOX News poll (which is odd because the word unscientific seems redundant when put beside FOX News, but also seems hypocritical when used with the word poll) of at this immediate moment, 535,580 people shows roughly 42% of people support OWS. Keep in mind, these are probably primarily FOX viewers taking this poll, and a poll with that many people has a very low statistical margin for error. So of the people who watch FOX, people who tend to be conservative, roughly 42% agrees that OWS represents them. Here's the link. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/07/do-occupy-wall-street-protests-represe...

Golly gee wilikers, I'm no mathematician, but that seems like a lot more than 5%.

Also, the vast majority of OWS does not want something for nothing. They want a job that pays enough to reflect their training and education. Yeah, some dickheads can argue that if these people really wanted a job then they would apply at McDonald's. Guess what, a lot of them have already, and of those who have not I ask this, why the fuck should a person with a four year degree or more work minimum wage in a job that is designed for high school students, high school drop outs, and those who really just lack the motivation to go anywhere further?

"common sense my friend"

Common sense is also often referred to as horse sense. On one hand it seems really awesome, and in many regards it is. However, a horse will run back into a burning barn on horse sense because it is where it feels secure. In this situation, it would be more appropriate to use analytical skills and higher reasoning rather than common sense.

all good conclusions. but you are no better by your conclusions concerning fox. even i support some of what the ows has to say. they actually mimic alot of what the tea party has said for the last three years. we just have a more civilized, legal, organized and sanitary way of expressing ourselves. "They want a job that pays enough to reflect their training and education." what training and education would you be referring to, rolling joints and camping? sure some of those folks have a ligitimate complaint but many are just
vagabond tagalongs just looking for an excuse to bitch, get laid, camp out and get high.

"what training and education would you be referring to, rolling joints and camping?"

You do realize that a fair portion of the OWS protesters are actually college graduates that cannot find employment because corporations are refusing to hire people during an economic crisis despite the fact that many are making ridiculous profits right?

"sure some of those folks have a ligitimate complaint but many are just vagabond tagalongs just looking for an excuse to bitch, get laid, camp out and get high."

Seems like you are confusing defining characteristics of the original Woodstock with todays OWS movement.

As far as the Tea ba... Party being more civilized, I can post plenty of pictures of how civilized the Tea Party has been at demonstrations and I can account plenty of situations where groups of Tea Partiers used brute intimidation against other people who merely exercised their first amendment rights. The only things that makes the Tea Party look more civilized are the facts that they have not managed to have such a large display of their outrage and they usually stayed in their local area and therefore did not require to sleep in mass tent communities, or they stayed in RV's or hotels if they picketed an area that they were not from.

Also, the OWS bulk message, though similar in regards to that of the Tea Party, is still different. The Tea Party seems to want no government interference with any business and/or corporation. OWS wants the government to regulate big businesses, banks and corporations so that people who are at the top of the ladder do not screw over employees or remove jobs in order to gain more short term profit.

thats really my point. we can all post photos, make claims, and generalize. your documentation is really no more or less valid than schweizers or mine. we all believe what we want to believe. some of it fact, some fiction and a mix of the two. so we are at an impasse as you feel as strongly on your positions as i do mine. we are both right and wrong at the same time. my real mission here on current is not so much posting stories that the majority here will disagree with but to expose the hypocrisy. i know it exists on the right as well but thats your job to point out not mine. peace

Heh, you get the big picture...

so whats wrong with wanking? something we can all agree on my friend

Timothy Geithner is not a liberal. He is an Independent. He was found to have withheld 35,000 dollars in self employment taxes. Do you actually think this is one of the biggest tax cheats in modern history? He was only asked to pay an extra 15,000 dollars in additional taxes. The biggest tax cheat in modern history was Walter Anderson. He was given 9 years in prison, and had to pay 200 million in restitution. He's a Republican. Here is a list of the top ten tax evaders. Bank of America. Boeing. Citicorp. Exxon/Mobile. GE. Google. Mega Pharmaceuticals Merk and Pfizer. News Corp (Fox News). Verizon. Wells Fargo. How many of these corporations do you suppose have liberals on their boards?

All of them

I suppose that's true. But do you think Corporations as persons should be described as Conservative or Liberal? Setting aside whether or not they should be described as people or not.

Corrupt. . .left and right

But are they better described as Conservative or Liberal? Why do I always have such a hard time getting straight answers to these questions?

How can I answer that with any certainty? . . It would only be conjecture. Nevertheless, if you weigh the actions of the corporations as singular in purpose they may be deemed as "conservative" in protecting their interests (self-serving). . . after all they are in the business for profits, not income re-distribution (which seems to be the liberal mantra).
What are your thoughts on this matter?

Oh he only cheated the government out of $35,000? Roughly the average American's salary? Is this the liberals new threshold of the minimum ethical requirements needed to elevate someone to public office?

He became the Secretary of Treasury. The person ultimately responsible for promulgating the IRS TAX REGULATIONS. And he's a tax cheat. What is next? Will the liberals appoint Bernie Maddoff as head of the S.E.C.?

Now that's an answer. Thank you.

I didn't say he ONLY cheated the government out of 35,000 dollars. He's a tax cheat and should not have been appointed dog catcher. I was trying to point out that calling someone who withheld 35,000 dollars in taxes one of the biggest tax cheats in modern history is patently absurd. I was also trying to point out that he is not a Liberal, but a self declared Independent. Nothing that I said was not factual. Nor was I trying to make excuses for tax cheaters, Liberal, Conservative or Independent.

you can google anything and find any answer you seek my stoner friend

if he's a democrat it is likely

Well it's better then pulling assumptions out of your ass. I have known he is an Independent for a long time. And if you have been following my posts, you would know this is not the first time I have mentioned Walter Anderson. I take it you went to Google to try and prove me wrong? Good luck with that.

I'm not a Democrat. I'm a Canadian. You know. The country that does nothing the way you do, and has absolutely none of your problems. Oh, and by the way, It's called fact checking guys. Something completely alien to the American Conservative mind. Exactly what congoboy should have done before he blew it and called Geithner a Liberal.

sorry, i follow no one, other than a good woman. but if you invite me on your followers list i may comment on your relevant posts from time to time. no i dont generally rely on google for my misinformation

stonerboy, canadian=liberal=democrat. simple math really. when did i call the geitman a liberal? he may be an independent but that doesnt mean he's not a liberal. i myself am an independent, a conservative indepenent. if you did your homework you'd know that independents have particular political leanings, some left some right. the unique thing about us independents whether left or right, we think for ourselves

thanks canadia, for your valuable input on american politics. so are all of you hosers or is that a generalization?

Sorry, that was nowherefast that called Geithner a Liberal.

I follow American politics because I'm a bit of a political junkie. The fact that are system works so well, makes it a bit boring. And as for valuable input. Current just gave me the Zeitgeist badge for overwhelmingly well received comments. I'm sure you have one too. Your comments bust be better received than mine. Given the tone of your statement.

Canadian = Liberal = Democrat? See. You should of done some fact checking. Our government has been led federally by the Conservatives since 2006. We just had a summer election and the Conservatives will be in power until 2016. I have voted for the federal Conservative party in Canada most of life. I have voted for the federal Liberal party in Canada twice. In our last Provincial election I voted Liberal. In our next Provincial election I plan to vote for the Conservative candidate. What you would never find a Canadian doing is voting for someone who thinks like a Republican. And Stoner is my surname, not a life style. I do not use drugs or alcohol. The fact that you are trying to insult me tells me a lot about your character. Are we all hosers? You do realize that when someone starts throwing out insults, it means their argument isn't very strong.

apology accepted

now i apologize to you. without knowledge of your charachter it was presumptuous of me to include you with the more liberal canadian mindset. i am so used to unwarranted attacks on current just because of my political beliefs that i often engage in defense mode even when not attacked. there are other nationals who tend to down grade the american political system and its people and i take offense. we are not a perfect country and both party's can take some of the blame for that. but overall the american people are some of the worlds most accepting, generous and giving. some democrats included (hah)

Absolutely. Apology accepted. I agree with you about the American people. A while back I posted that, "if anyone can turn their situation around,it's the Americans. I truly believe in the American people". It's your leadership on both sides of the isle that have you in this pickle.

the evolution of mankind is eternal

Well, unless we wipe ourselves out.

Pretty decent possibility if we don't colonize space.

not likely all of mankind would be eradicated. several pockets of survivors would make it, although if in that case im not sure i would want to

thankyou for wasting your valuable time, i appreciate it

and leftylibs are pretty good at psudo-intellectualism as well

The Hoover Institution is a unit of Stanford University, and is located on its campus.

Mission Statement:
"This Institution supports the Constitution of the United States, its Bill of Rights and its method of representative government. Both our social and economic systems are based on private enterprise from which springs initiative and ingenuity. . . . Ours is a system where the Federal Government should undertake no governmental, social or economic action, except where local government, or the people, cannot undertake it for themselves. . . . The overall mission of this Institution is, from its records, to recall the voice of experience *against the making of war, and by the study of these records and their publication, to recall man’s endeavors to make and preserve peace, and to sustain for America the safeguards of the American way of life. This Institution is not, and must not be, a mere library. But with these purposes as its goal, the Institution itself must constantly and dynamically point the road to peace, to personal freedom, and to the safeguards of the American system."

The Hoover Institution is funded by multiple sources. It receives nearly half of its funding from private gifts, including corporate charitable foundations (and among those are ones you've mentioned) and the other half from its endowment . . . so exactly what is the point that you are implying?

so tell me where ge, big banking, wall street and the industrial war complex comes into the current admin

" tell me where ge, big banking, wall street and the industrial war complex comes into the current admin"
The simple short answer to your question (?) is this: It Doesn't.
->President Obama's Administration passed the Financial Reform Regulation Legislation the tightest reign on the predatory too-big-to-fail banking and financial credit , mortgage, and loan industry in well over two or more decades.
The Obama Administration presses for fair taxation on, and elimination of taxation dodges for, Wall Street multi-billionaire capitol gains financier investor vulture capitalists.
->The President's Administration pushes for the tightest possible regulations on, and the elimination of subsidies and taxation loopholes for, the most profitable multi-billion-dollar corporate industries.
->The President Obama administration has ended the longest war in American History in a formerly-sovereign occupied foreign nation halfway around the globe, and if unwaveringly pursuing the previous "administration"'s outgoing pre-agreed-upon exit date for the other of the two unprovoked preemptive wars that Presidency started, within less than two years of one another, in West Asia.
->As for the General Electric Corporation, i for one am not entirely sure as i see this present Administration as having had any particularly all that very much closer interrelationship with any one trans-national multi-billion-dollar publicly traded corporate conglomeration than has any other Presidency for at least the past century or so, so i have to say that i am not, on the whole, convinced that i have any real idea what, exactly, in the wide world of all things sane and rational it may be that you are referring to by mentioning a singular solitary corporation by name.
Do you even know that yourself?
Or are you just blabbering incoherently out of both ends (again)?

WHAT IS THE OBAMA & GENERAL ELECTRIC CONNECTION?

The Comcast Cable NBC/Universal merger has been in a regulatory limbo since the announcement with the FCC & Justice Department unsure if the deal would stifled competition.
Once the deal closes, Comcast will acquire a 51 percent stake in NBC Universal from General Electric Co, creating a $30 billion business that would include broadcast, cable networks, movie studios and theme parks. Source: Reuters.
Clearly, the Comcast GE multimedia conglomerate will prove immensely profitable for the two companies now that the FCC/DOJ approval went through a few days ago.
Oddly enough, President Obama named now former GE Chairman and CEO Jeff Immelt to a new position inside the Administration. Immelt will be the Chairman on the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Wait! A General Electric CEO that had to be a part of the Comcast Cable merger with NBC/Universal is now named to a White House position! This is screwed up on so many levels! How can nobody see what is happening? GE was one of the President Obama’s biggest campaign supporters and donors back in 2008 and now this happens! Don’t tell me the FCC and the DOJ were told to look the other way over this $30 billion deal. http://gillreport.com/2011/01/what-is-the-obama-general-electric-connection/...I...'s good to hear that the local movement has a grip on reality. They correctly protested Obama and his Wall Street connections last month. On the contrary, the occupation in New York City that Occupy Iowa City stands in solidarity with has not been so outspoken.

This is troubling, since there is more to this story than I let on. Jon Corzine — the former New Jersey governor, former Goldman Sachs board member, and longtime Democrat and Obama supporter — was the head of MF Global. Between him and his employees, according to federal elections data, more than $600,000 was donated this year to the DNC and the Obama re-election campaign.

Is it unreasonable to think that some of those "missing funds" might have found their way into an Obama bank account? Not at all. Even though the Obama campaign has said they will return any funds involved in the scandal, it doesn't change the fact that it happened.

But wait, there's more. A recent bond sale by MF Global included a clause that showed that there would be a 1 percent rise in the interest rate if Corzine were appointed to a post in the Obama administration, which was looking to him as a replacement for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.
http://www.dailyiowan.com/2011/11/10/Opinions/25911.html...President Obama doesn't take campaign contributions from lobbyists -- unless you count the owners and CEOs of lobbying firms, corporate vice presidents for government relations, or managing directors for public policy.

"We don't accept any money from special-interest groups or Washington lobbyists," the Obama campaign bragged in a recent email touting the $70 million raised last quarter by the campaign and the Democratic National Committee. But if you comb through the actual filings with the Federal Elections Commission, you see how misleading this claim is.

Wealthy revolving-door banker Peter Orszag epitomizes everything Obama ran against. Orszag was Obama's budget director until the 2010 elections at which point he cashed out to bailed-out megabank Citigroup. A Citi executive touted Orszag's "key ... government experience" and "his expertise in economic policy." In other words, Orzag has monetized his public service and sold it to Citi, which, like all big banks, counts on favorable government policy for its profits.

Apparently feeling fairly plush after nine months at a Wall Street salary, Orszag cut a $35,800 check last month to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee that divides its funds between the official Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee. To sum up: Orszag gained inside knowledge and connections on the taxpayer dime, put them to work for a big bank, then used his salary from this bailed-out bank to give the maximum contribution to the man who hired him in the White House.

Orszag's tale may be the most unseemly, but revolving-door influence peddlers are common at Obama fundraisers. Kathy Brown is Verizon's senior vice president for "public policy development and corporate responsibility." The telecom giant's website says she is "responsible for federal, state and international public policy development and international government relations for Verizon." Like Orszag, Brown's a revolver, having leveraged her time at Bill Clinton's Federal Communications Commission (which regulates Verizon) into a K Street lobbying job before taking over Verizon's lobby shop. Brown has given $17,900 to the Obama Victory Fund.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/despite-ban-fat-cat-lobbyists.... youre awfully blind my mislead and misspeaking friend

"President Obama named now former GE Chairman and CEO Jeff Immelt to a new position inside the Administration. Immelt will be the Chairman on the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Wait! A General Electric CEO that had to be a part of the Comcast Cable merger with NBC/Universal is now named to a White House position"
General Electric CEO Jeffrey Robert Immelt succeeded Ron-Paul-praised Ronald Reagan Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Adolph Volcker, Jr. as chair of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, now known as the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.
Also on the board is Ronald Reagan Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Martin Stuart Feldstein, George W. Bush Federal Reserve Governor Roger W. Ferguson, Jr., Richard Nixon Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs William Henry Donaldson.
Other members of the board include Bank of America Corporation Director Monica Cecilia Lozano and Union Bank of Switzerland CEO Robert Wolf.
So what exactly is the particular connection you are proposing with General Electric?

"GE was one of the President Obama’s biggest campaign supporters and donors back in 2008"
WRONG
General Electric did not even make the top 10 list, and was just barely inside the top 20.

nice spin, you should become a professional apologist. it suits you

"nice spin"
So let me get this straight.
You blindly and unheedingly copy and paste a fact-free, demonstrably inaccurate, provably false and misleading blog from a website (http://www.dailyiowan.com/2011/11/10/Opinions/25911.html...President) that, according to the results of a relatively fairly expansive google internet search, does not appear to exist.
When i write the facts, which anyone with two hands, ten fingers, and two eyes can check for themselves, concerning tha matter which presume the evidently nonexistent blog was in regards to (i can only assume what the subject of the blog might have been , since no resources were cited in what you incoherently copied and pasted), THAT is "spin"?
You have some very bizarre definitions for the words you use, my intentionally unknowledgeable friend.

pretty much

So,
if relevant facts = "spin"
then
a blog that does not exist = WHAT?
If it isn't spin, then is there even a word for blindly copying and pasting something word for word verbatim that does not actually even exist anywhere?

lol.. let me know if the dvd version is on 3D please! lol..

Wahtt! You would waste your time on Rush Limbaugh / Ann Coulter style drivel? Ughh...

Will Do Bud.:)

Well if they bring it to DVD then I can mute it and add my own words to the parts I don't like.

not really

That would make sense.

to those who are honest it does

i have more honesty, integrity, and heart and soul than most leftylibs posting and commenting here. try meditaion my friend and you may find peace yourself

are you off your meds again? you should spend less time isolating yourself and nechvenin your putz and spend more time joining the real world. theres more la chaim then spending your days holed up in a dark dingy apartment drinking Manischewitz, eating pork and listening to your over bearing guilt ridden mame

i would agree it is a genralization and i would never include you in this description my friend. you are a rare voice from the left on current. i take exception to those here who arent less honest, less generous, lazier, and more materialistic, they know who they are. the rest are lying to themselves

You said it before and that's the reason why i respect you... both the left and right are lying and corrupt leeches, just trying to make a buck!

agreed, totally. if you were truly representative of the majority on the left and i were truly representative of the majority on the right the world would be a much sweeter place:)

Are you stating that this book was written without basis or foundation of fact and therefore oppositional points of view negate points of fact?. . . might I suggest that your opinion is simple conjecture, no less than that which you say it is that of the author.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

And when you don't post your sources or open yourself up to criticism without spending 9.95, that's a totally appropriate thing to say.

If it's so factual, why isn't it in an academic journal? Stuff like this gets posted all the time.

Sources? . . I'll take the input and research from an Hoover Institute research fellow and match it with the secular garbage vomited from a Soros funded "source" any day of the week. . . and yes, I do know that I'm speaking of a conservative "think tank," but hey, I AM a conservative free market capitalist, with no apologies for standing against govt mandated "social justice". . . attempting to strip me from my identity as a self determining citizen all in the name of "equality." . . what a crock of shit foisted on the weak of mind and spirit to make the masses subjects of the state, instead of the state being subject to its citizens.

I'm sorry, were you talking to me or to yourself again?

Moreover, you don't understand what research is if you aren't asking for the sources. It's hearsay if you don't have a source. There's literally no reason to believe the entire thing isn't made up.

And if you're going to turn this into a political circlejerk, all I have to do to complete it is say the opposite of what you said. That I don't buy into plutocratic propaganda and I'm not a servant of sociopathic businessmen and your research is Koch funded and blah blah blah blah blah.

Got that out of your system?

Because, if you were listening, the actual data is inconclusive. Otherwise no one would be arguing about it. As is stands, political opinion cut across class, race, gender and all other forms of lines. Attempts to isolate character patterns that coincide with political preference don't turn up very much hard data.

I see, you've established yourself as an authority on that?

I don't have to be an authority on it. It's enough that psychologists and sociologists and neuroscientists don't make any claims to the contrary that does it for me.

Plus there's such a political motivation to make your opponent look stupid that any data on this subject has to be treated with very close scrutiny.

Not that it would matter regardless of any other circumstances. It's the ideas that stand on their merits, regardless of the person espousing them.

The worst thing are those who are so certain of their own righteousness that they believe that they have the monopoly on the truth, and regards anyone who disagrees with them intellectually as morally deficient and therefore someone to be trampled over. . . are we talking about our differences as if only your opinion has authority? . . I don't think it does.

There's no such thing as a monopoly on the truth. You can argue over opinions and values and other subjective topics all day, but facts are facts.

In that sense, unless I'm mistaken, there aren't any studies that indicate any of these things. So anyone's opinion is totally irrelevant in a matter that would have to be decided by facts.

And in regards to your post, you might want to turn some of that criticism inwards.

Good defensive scramble on your part Saladin, but as I said, I'll put more credence on information from a Stanford's University's Hoover Institution fellow's research then I would others. . . call me biased if you will.
Regarding turning criticism upon myself. . . I do, and I'm brutally honest with myself (or so I believe) . . . and how about yourself?

oh sally anyone can write a book. take al gore for example

thank you

have you read the book? the sources are inside

we're all racist, remember?

That is in fact so, but heaven forbid that it can be admitted and therefore it must be vehemently denied.

So, in other words, you're just going to believe what you want to believe since you haven't read the studies, if this guy even used studies. Hell, you haven't even read the book.

Keep in mind, this is just some asshole's book. This is not the work of Stanford University or even the Hoover Institution (brought us such brilliant minds as Condoleezza Rice and other Bush admin. goons), it's just his book. It's not peer reviewed and it's not approved by any academic board.

And yes, I will call you biased if you take information from a biased book written by a biased man from a biased think-tank (it's not a research institute) dedicated to one of the worst presidents in American history (although the think-tank wasn't involved in writing this book).

What else do you want me to say? Do you have any idea the amount of research it would take to substantiate something like "being liberal makes you a bad person?" It's not even clear whether it's possible to prove something like that.

Also, your racism comment is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. No one disagrees with that, and if you actually spent time discussing that with people you'd find that out. But instead, not only do you just assume you have some brilliant idea that no one else has thought about yet, you assume that if they have, they "vehemently deny it."

Right, that's the point.

Anyone can write a book, so why should I take it seriously?

If I was going to tell you something from a book by Al Gore, I'd find you the original source. I wouldn't just say "Al Gore said so" and expect you to take it seriously. So why should I take this seriously?

As for reading the book, no. I am not going to spend money on this asshole's book so I can waste time trying to figure out what studies he misrepresented to get this result.

If it was legit, he's put in a fucking journal like everyone else. The exact reason he wrote this book (other than to make money) is so that he wouldn't have to be criticized by his peers.

No Saladin, I have not read "the" studies from which Schweitzer composed his "conclusions," (although throughout the years I have read a few studies of that nature here and there) nor admittedly have I read this book which you are decrying so adamantly is written by (as you call) some "ass-hole" who you feel has no credibility because it has not been submitted to a "Journal" of peers, (his or otherwise) and to which his conclusions you believe are merit-less. . . by the way, after a bit of research on my part, it appears that Schweitzer is an accomplished man who has in fact established a measure of credibility. . . and he has in fact done a great deal of extensive and in depth research and analysis for this book.

Sadly your snarky remark concerning the alumni of Stanford's Hoover Institution that have served on conservative administrations serves you poorly in defining yourself as objective, which it appears up until now - that you've exuded that persona.
~ Am I then to be intimidated because I believe that this author and book makes a case to which I agree and for which you do not? . . I think not. Because I agree, am I therefore wrong because you believe his portrayal is unfounded, but you cannot prove that as so? . . again, I think not.

The reviews that I've read so far do not say that Shwieitzer states that being liberal makes one a "bad" person. . . but it does say that the perception that liberals portray themselves as more giving, caring, honest, etc, etc, is just not so. . . does that bother you?

As to your last comment about my (rhetorically speaking) "overstating" the obvious . . . that was exactly my intent, because If I had a dollar for every time I've seen comments here and elsewhere where it was patently obvious that racism played a part in statements or affairs of one nature or another, and then listen to the person(s) and/or their apologists vehemently (there's that word again) deny that it wasn't, I could buy a great deal more necessities than my budget currently will allow!

I'm getting kinda tired of repeating myself, so let me try to explain this in a simple way.

Research gets published. Bullshit ends up in books like this.

The reason being that if you want to publish something as research, people go over it with a fine tooth comb and make sure you haven't made any mistakes.

When you publish a book, all you have to do is convince a publisher it will sell.

In that sense, you could almost literally get a book claiming damn near everything on the planet. And if you head into the politics section at the local Barnes and Noble, that's pretty much exactly what you'll find.

As for him being accomplished, hardly. Admittedly I only looked at his page on Wikipedia, but all he's done is published two books, this one being one of them. The other is one about how Reagan won the Cold War. I'm seeing a fairly consistent trend of totally wrong shit here so far. Feel free to prove me wrong, I'm not holding my breath.

And you do not understand objectivity if you think me pointing out the bias of someone else makes *me* biased. No guy, that's exactly the kind of thing you want to take into account when you're trying to decide if something is bullshit or not. If White Supremacists put out a book claiming they've proved Black people are inferior, would you take that at face value?

No, you don't need to be intimidated because you clearly want to believe the conclusion that I'm disputing. But human beings are notorious for falling prey to confirmation bias, the tendency to seek out "evidence" that matches pre-existing prejudices. Since this is exactly the kind of shit that's tailor-made (and sold, mind you) to exploit that kind of weakness.

I was just summarizing when I said it makes liberals "bad" people, but I do think most people would think someone who was dishonest, uncaring and cruel was a bad person. It would bother me if any of this were actually true, because some small part of me considers myself a "liberal." But only because it would be concerning how many of my "peers" have disproportionate sets of problems. It wouldn't invalidate any of the ideas behind it though. Bad people come up with good ideas all the time. And, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Although it's a far cry to make a correlation a causation. In addition, if he did use real studies, I doubt they'd be statistically significant or that they accounted for all other variables (that is, that the result was not a matter of chance or that they accidentally measured something else by not accounting for race, gender, age, income group etc.).

As for the racism thing, I think of it sort of like a sex scandal. Most people are, privately, very mature about such matters. But in public, it's scandalous so people feel the need to overly defend themselves. And since it has so much ugly history and personal feelings tied into it, it can be very hard to have a civil conversation about it. Again, it wasn't your assertion that bothered me. It's that you used it as an excuse to act self-righteous and to make assumptions about other people.

many folks write alot of things from both the left and the right that dont end up in journals. does that discount all of them? just because you dont fit the mold as prescribed by the author and disagree with the results doesnt necessarily make the material incorrect or irrelevant. his claims are of course generaliziations but plenty of generalizations are voiced and written about the right, the tea party, republicans etc. few people posting or commenting on current seem to want to discredit them. so where does that leave us?

Research gets published. . . yes it does, and surprisingly they're called "Books.". . go figure that!
Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell have published books. . . are they less credible simply because you may not believe or accept their hypotheses?

I get it that you don't believe that Schweitzer did the research that he used to substantiate his position . . . but then, you don't really know, do you?