VP Joe Biden "understands" China's barbaric one-child policy

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2011 5:21 PM GMT
    This is I think a litmus test for liberals. I'm sure there are plenty of people who agree with Biden looking in from the outside ignoring the barbarism and the extreme policy that has resulted in the unnecessary deaths of baby girls and the starvation of families and even jail when they defied the policy. But these are the same people who believe that resources can only be redistributed despite the massive growth in food production as a result of assignment of property rights to farmers - ie markets.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2011/08/24/romney-jumps-on-biden-remark-about-chinas-one-child-policy/?mod=WSJBlog

    Taking questions at Sichuan University in Chengdu,about rising red ink in the U.S., the vice president said that China also faces a demographically induced crisis. The decades-old one-child policy in China has resulted in too few workers for the aging population, but unlike the U.S., China’s problem isn’t with the younger generation facing rising debt or rising taxes but an older generation with not enough young workers to care for it. So far so good, but then Mr. Biden, a pro-choice Catholic, had to weigh in on the wisdom of the one-child policy.

    “You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family,” Mr. Biden said. “The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.”

    Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney pounced.

    “China’s one-child policy is gruesome and barbaric,” he said in a statement. “Vice President Biden’s acquiescence to such a policy should shock the conscience of every American. Instead of condoning the policy, Vice President Biden should have condemned it in the strongest possible terms. There can be no defense of a government that engages in compulsory sterilization and forced abortions in the name of population control.”
  • Bigolbear

    Posts: 528

    Aug 24, 2011 7:56 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidThis is I think a litmus test for liberals. I'm sure there are plenty of people who agree with Biden looking in from the outside ignoring the barbarism and the extreme policy that has resulted in the unnecessary deaths of baby girls and the starvation of families and even jail when they defied the policy. But these are the same people who believe that resources can only be redistributed despite the massive growth in food production as a result of assignment of property rights to farmers - ie markets.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2011/08/24/romney-jumps-on-biden-remark-about-chinas-one-child-policy/?mod=WSJBlog

    Taking questions at Sichuan University in Chengdu,about rising red ink in the U.S., the vice president said that China also faces a demographically induced crisis. The decades-old one-child policy in China has resulted in too few workers for the aging population, but unlike the U.S., China’s problem isn’t with the younger generation facing rising debt or rising taxes but an older generation with not enough young workers to care for it. So far so good, but then Mr. Biden, a pro-choice Catholic, had to weigh in on the wisdom of the one-child policy.

    “You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family,” Mr. Biden said. “The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.”

    Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney pounced.

    “China’s one-child policy is gruesome and barbaric,” he said in a statement. “Vice President Biden’s acquiescence to such a policy should shock the conscience of every American. Instead of condoning the policy, Vice President Biden should have condemned it in the strongest possible terms. There can be no defense of a government that engages in compulsory sterilization and forced abortions in the name of population control.”


    It comes down to how you think he meant for his quote to be taken.

    “You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family,”

    It doesn't mean he understands and accepts the reasoning behind the policy. It means that he understands the policy as one of one child per family. Reading what he said seems to make me think he sees the policy as not sustainable. Is that how you take it as well?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2011 8:01 PM GMT
    I wish somebody would hurry up and "sterilize" the Bachmann duo and be done with this shit.

    PS. Shit like this is why I'm a huge proponent of gun ownership.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2011 2:34 AM GMT
    Bigolbear said
    riddler78 saidThis is I think a litmus test for liberals. I'm sure there are plenty of people who agree with Biden looking in from the outside ignoring the barbarism and the extreme policy that has resulted in the unnecessary deaths of baby girls and the starvation of families and even jail when they defied the policy. But these are the same people who believe that resources can only be redistributed despite the massive growth in food production as a result of assignment of property rights to farmers - ie markets.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2011/08/24/romney-jumps-on-biden-remark-about-chinas-one-child-policy/?mod=WSJBlog

    Taking questions at Sichuan University in Chengdu,about rising red ink in the U.S., the vice president said that China also faces a demographically induced crisis. The decades-old one-child policy in China has resulted in too few workers for the aging population, but unlike the U.S., China’s problem isn’t with the younger generation facing rising debt or rising taxes but an older generation with not enough young workers to care for it. So far so good, but then Mr. Biden, a pro-choice Catholic, had to weigh in on the wisdom of the one-child policy.

    “You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family,” Mr. Biden said. “The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.”

    Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney pounced.

    “China’s one-child policy is gruesome and barbaric,” he said in a statement. “Vice President Biden’s acquiescence to such a policy should shock the conscience of every American. Instead of condoning the policy, Vice President Biden should have condemned it in the strongest possible terms. There can be no defense of a government that engages in compulsory sterilization and forced abortions in the name of population control.”


    It comes down to how you think he meant for his quote to be taken.

    “You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family,”

    It doesn't mean he understands and accepts the reasoning behind the policy. It means that he understands the policy as one of one child per family. Reading what he said seems to make me think he sees the policy as not sustainable. Is that how you take it as well?


    Not sure how that would be any better. In what circumstances can the barbarism be acceptable? That there is no safety net makes it understandable that babies have been killed and girls aborted?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2011 2:40 AM GMT
    paulflexes saidI wish somebody would hurry up and "sterilize" the Bachmann duo and be done with this shit.

    PS. Shit like this is why I'm a huge proponent of gun ownership.


    How...how would they have kids?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2011 5:54 PM GMT
    riddler - try to understand this: one can understand a rationale without agreeing with the course of action.


    Is this why you resist understanding what people say to you - you are afraid that by allowing yourself to listen and understand, you might be thought to agree?

    No, you do not have to agree. but you owe it to yourself to understand peoples' reasoning.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2011 6:10 PM GMT
    Upper_Canadian saidriddler - try to understand this: one can understand a rationale without agreeing with the course of action.


    Is this why you resist understanding what people say to you - you are afraid that by allowing yourself to listen and understand, you might be thought to agree?

    No, you do not have to agree. but you owe it to yourself to understand peoples' reasoning.


    Studies show conservatives have a much harder time understanding the views and ideas of others, hence the strict adherence to tradition and often times failed policies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2011 6:15 PM GMT
    Upper_Canadian saidriddler - try to understand this: one can understand a rationale without agreeing with the course of action.


    Is this why you resist understanding what people say to you - you are afraid that by allowing yourself to listen and understand, you might be thought to agree?

    No, you do not have to agree. but you owe it to yourself to understand peoples' reasoning.


    So if someone said that they understood why Hitler used the Jews as scapegoats in an audience of Nazi sympathizers or that they understood why blacks were sold as slaves for cheap laborers in an audience of white supremacists, you would be able to both empathize and encourage "understanding"?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2011 6:16 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    Upper_Canadian saidriddler - try to understand this: one can understand a rationale without agreeing with the course of action.


    Is this why you resist understanding what people say to you - you are afraid that by allowing yourself to listen and understand, you might be thought to agree?

    No, you do not have to agree. but you owe it to yourself to understand peoples' reasoning.


    Studies show conservatives have a much harder time understanding the views and ideas of others, hence the strict adherence to tradition and often times failed policies.


    The irony is that the opposite is true and what studies suggest. It is liberals who are far less tolerant of differing viewpoints despite their claims otherwise.
  • Bigolbear

    Posts: 528

    Aug 25, 2011 9:04 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Upper_Canadian saidriddler - try to understand this: one can understand a rationale without agreeing with the course of action.


    Is this why you resist understanding what people say to you - you are afraid that by allowing yourself to listen and understand, you might be thought to agree?

    No, you do not have to agree. but you owe it to yourself to understand peoples' reasoning.


    So if someone said that they understood why Hitler used the Jews as scapegoats in an audience of Nazi sympathizers or that they understood why blacks were sold as slaves for cheap laborers in an audience of white supremacists, you would be able to both empathize and encourage "understanding"?


    No, it would be like saying : "Hitler, as I understand it, killed Jews." It's not like he was saying he understand WHY he killed the Jews just that he was clarifying that he undersands THAT Hitler killed the Jews. I don't think he was being empathetic towards the idea he was confirming that he understood it correctly. Actually he said in his speech that he sees it as a failed theory. Where he is wrong is in bringing up the subject without condemning the actions taken by the government to force adherence to the policy.

    The original article is trying to create a fake "Gotcha" moment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2011 9:16 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    Upper_Canadian saidriddler - try to understand this: one can understand a rationale without agreeing with the course of action.


    Is this why you resist understanding what people say to you - you are afraid that by allowing yourself to listen and understand, you might be thought to agree?

    No, you do not have to agree. but you owe it to yourself to understand peoples' reasoning.


    Studies show conservatives have a much harder time understanding the views and ideas of others, hence the strict adherence to tradition and often times failed policies.


    The irony is that the opposite is true and what studies suggest. It is liberals who are far less tolerant of differing viewpoints despite their claims otherwise.


    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/02/14/455792/-Is-the-Liberal-Conservative-Divide-in-our-Genes-

    "A much stronger link exists between political orientation and openness,which psychologists define as including traits such as an ability to accept new ideas, a tolerance for ambiguity and an interest in different cultures. When these traits are combined, people with high openness scores turn out to be almost twice as likely to be liberals.

    Combine the genetic influences on personality with the political tendencies of different personality types, and the idea that genetics shapes political tendencies seems very plausible indeed. All of the big five personality traits are highly heritable (Journal of Research in Personality, vol 32, p 431), with several studies suggesting that around half of the variation in openness scores is a result of genetic differences. "
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 12:29 PM GMT
    paulflexes saidI wish somebody would hurry up and "sterilize" the Bachmann duo and be done with this shit.

    PS. Shit like this is why I'm a huge proponent of gun ownership.


    Where is the love?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 12:40 PM GMT
    Do not advocate barbarism in any shape, form, or fashion. China needs to find a more humane way to control their population. Education? Is that too radical?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 1:07 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Upper_Canadian saidriddler - try to understand this: one can understand a rationale without agreeing with the course of action.


    Is this why you resist understanding what people say to you - you are afraid that by allowing yourself to listen and understand, you might be thought to agree?

    No, you do not have to agree. but you owe it to yourself to understand peoples' reasoning.


    So if someone said that they understood why Hitler used the Jews as scapegoats in an audience of Nazi sympathizers or that they understood why blacks were sold as slaves for cheap laborers in an audience of white supremacists, you would be able to both empathize and encourage "understanding"?


    Yes, dear riddler.

    I understand why Hitler did theose things, because I studied the context of his times and tried to understand his goals. The tactics were devised by his key henchmem.l. I can empathise with the conditions that led to the conditions that allowed Hitler to rise, but condonation does not automaticallly follow.


    It is an intellectial exercise in piecing together the "logic" of what happened -
    WHY and how thus be able to recognise the potential recurrence and effect change in concondance with MY principles.

    It is an essential part of problem solving and strategic planning.

    I spent a huge amount of thought and time reading, and talking to people who lved through it (on both sides of the European conflict trying to understand how such events came to be.

    Now do you understand?


    So I do understand (I think) the Rise & Fall of the Third Reich (at least as written about by William L. Shirer ( 1483 pages described as "the book that shook the conscience of the world)) but not at all the cultural mentality or context that could allow the depravity of the Rape of Nanking. I do not understad that as I can find No logic to it - it is was pure animal savagery. Perhaps it can be understood through their religious beliefs involving the divine nature of the Japanese Emperor. I dunno. Nor do I care. I do not fear a repeat of that.




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 1:28 PM GMT
    To both biglobear and upper_canadian -

    Here are Biden's words that suggest both empathy and respect for the policy:

    “You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family,” Mr. Biden said. “The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.”


    He explicitly says that not only does he understand, but he does not second guess the policy. You have no safety net and therefore it's ok that you have this brutal policy that results in families killing their baby girls and/or aborting their fetuses.

    If you can understand this Upper_Canadian, you have far more empathy for totalitarian policies and barbarism than I do but then again, these can only exist in countries with oppressive state control, the natural outcome of the policies and forms of government you seem to advocate and where China would use "the greater good" to advocate the oppression of its people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 1:34 PM GMT
    This is why liberals ask the questions that the conservatives think are "attacks". I have worked very hard to try to understand the logic and reasoning of the right and it is so frustrating that they will not read links before commenting, then refuse to revisit it and try again when it is pointed out. It becomes an exercise in total futility, and now I see why -- they fear their opinions can't stand up to any scrutiny, so they refuse to voice the reasoning.

    Two cases in point :

    1. SB's "goat herder regulations" thread. He was so indignant when he thought it was a democratic initiative and demanded an answer, but once he realised his goof, he refuses to voice the answer to his own question. Not the behaviour of a Man, but of a callow child caught in a lie.

    And rather than denunciation by his colleagues on the Right, they allow him to represent them (instead of showing the intellectual fortitude, conviction - and plain honour - to say - hey, buddy, that's bullshit and you make our movement look bad.

    2. socalfitness - denounces a TED lecture about the dangers of dogmatism without even listening to it "because he THOUGHT it was by a "liberal" - though it wasn't Would he go back and listen once it was pointed out? Oh no! He condemned ME as dogmatic (forgetting how he himself once identified me as the one Liberal he thought genuinely listened and tried to understand the Right with sincerity icon_rolleyes.gif. Rather than just listen for two minutes , and maybe get an interesting NEW though to consider, instead he complained that I called him on what was prima facie dogmatism.

    My conclusion based on these observations is these guys on the right are not stupid, just intellectually lazy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 1:39 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidhttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/02/14/455792/-Is-the-Liberal-Conservative-Divide-in-our-Genes-

    "A much stronger link exists between political orientation and openness,which psychologists define as including traits such as an ability to accept new ideas, a tolerance for ambiguity and an interest in different cultures. When these traits are combined, people with high openness scores turn out to be almost twice as likely to be liberals.

    Combine the genetic influences on personality with the political tendencies of different personality types, and the idea that genetics shapes political tendencies seems very plausible indeed. All of the big five personality traits are highly heritable (Journal of Research in Personality, vol 32, p 431), with several studies suggesting that around half of the variation in openness scores is a result of genetic differences. "


    It is with little wonder with the often discredited sources that you use that you have the views you do. Nevertheless to add to your mix:

    Those who self identify as Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats and Independents according to GSS data which would pull from data far more broad than your study: http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2011/03/republicans-are-more-scientifically.html

    It is often insinuated by major media sources that Republicans are less scientifically literate than Democrats are, primarily because of the former's skepticism over evolution and opposition to taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. Jason Malloy dispelled this notion several years ago, but I wanted to present the GSS data on the topic in a more concrete and packaged form.

    The media insinuation is applicable when the issue is evolution, but for the rest of science, there is scant evidence to support the assertion that Republicans are more ignorant than Democrats and independents are. To the contrary, Republicans tend to be better informed.


    And another study, that suggests that when you are cognitively run down, you behave more like a liberal: http://www.bakadesuyo.com/are-we-all-liberals-at-heart

    Using self-regulation depletion and cognitive load tasks to compromise people's ability to monitor and regulate their automatic moral responses, we found support for the latter hypothesis—when cognitive resources were depleted/distracted, conservatives became more like liberals (de-prioritizing the binding foundations), rather than the other way around.


    Of course then there's this study that suggests liberals are more prone to suffering from psychological disorders than conservatives or moderates: http://neuropolitics.org/Anxiety-Depression-and-Goal-Seeking-in-Conservatives-Liberals-Moderates.htm

    Anxiety and depression would not seem to be specifically relevant to a particular individual's political affiliation. However, what should ostensibly be non-correlated variables have turned out to be highly correlated in our March 2005 survey. We found a statistically significant relationship (p < .0001) between anxiety, depression, and liberalism.

    Anxiety is a generic term used to summarize a variety of psychological illnesses such as social anxiety disorder, agoraphobia, panic syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, generalized anxiety syndrome, OCD, and other hyperphobic disorders. In this survey, we only were able to trap chronic generalized anxiety.

    Depression is a generic term used to summarize a variety of psychological illnesses such as major depressive disorder, dysthymia, bipolar disorder, cyclothemia, Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), and postpartum depression. We did not trap specific depressive disorders, except in the case of bipolar disorder.


    And finally there's this - if you're happy and you know it, you're more likely to be a libertarian - from a pundit with links to the original sources: http://conservativejock.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=162&page=1

    David Henderson points out that people on the left will complain about lack of choice in media and point to Fox News as an example. When he suggests that there are many other news outlets, the reply is "But some people only watch Fox News!" He concludes that the issue is not choice in media, but that people on the left are angry with other people's choices.


    So have fun trying to feel smug and superior to those stupid conservatives - but consider the possibility that you're the closed minded dim witted one - because apparently, you probably are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 1:44 PM GMT
    Upper_Canadian saidThis is why liberals ask the questions that the conservatives think are "attacks". I have worked very hard to try to understand the logic and reasoning of the right and it is so frustrating that they will not read links before commenting, then refuse to revisit it and try again when it is pointed out. It becomes an exercise in total futility, and now i see why -- they fear their opinions can't stand up to any scrutiny, so they refuse to voice the reasoning.

    Two cases in point :

    1. SB's "goat herder regulations" thread. He was so indignant when he thought it was a democratic initiative and demands an answer, but once he realised his goof, he refuses to voice the answer to his own question. Not the behaviour of a Man, but of a callow child caufht in a lie.

    And rather than denunciation by his colleagues on the Right, they allow him to represent them (instead of howing the intellectual fortitude, conviction - and plain honour - to say - hey, buddy, that;s bullshit and you make our movement look bad.

    2. socalfitness - denounces a TED lecture about the dangers of dogmatism without even listening to it "because he THOUGHT it was by a "liberal" - though it wasn't Would he go back and listen once it was pointed out? Oh no! NONO NO NO! He condemned ME as dogmatic (forgetting how he himself once identified me as the one Liberal he thought genuinely listened and tried to understand the Right with sincerity icon_rolleyes.gif. Rather than just listen for two minutes , and maybe get an interesting NEW though to conaider, instead he complained that I called him on what was prima facie dogmatism.

    My conclusion based on these observations is these guys on the right are not stupid, just intellectually lazy.


    Yes because liberals would never be guilty of such things - not to mention the sophomoric thought. Have you read some of the postings by jprichva, catfish, artdeco to name but a few? Even you have had a few doozies by way of blow ups.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 1:48 PM GMT
    So riddler, do you accept that one can understand with agreeing?

    And can you?



    simple questions. you can have the last word - as long as they boil down to a simple yes or no to two questions. I ask genuinely to understand , because i think this is the key somehow to finally establishing a useful dialogue.

    Failure to answer yes or no, is just evidence that you are not interested in dialogie; you are just trolling.




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 2:06 PM GMT
    Upper_Canadian saidSo riddler, do you accept that one can understand with agreeing?

    And can you?



    simple questions. you can have the last word - as long as they boil down to a simple yes or no to two questions. I ask genuinely to understand , because i think this is the key somehow to finally establishing a useful dialogue.

    Failure to answer yes or no, is just evidence that you are not interested in dialogie; you are just trolling.


    It's possible to follow the reasoning and logic someone might pursue to justify tyranny. I do not however understand which I think requires empathy as it requires overlooking the murder and complete disregard for human life. It's a different matter to empathize with it and not question it as Biden has done.

    One definition of "understand": "To perceive and comprehend the nature and significance of". Do I understand those like Paul Bernardo and/or Hitler/Polpot/Stalin/Obote/etc? No - I don't comprehend their nature while I might comprehend their significance. You cannot truly understand a decision or policy while ignoring their results and implications - especially when they are already known or are predictable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 2:25 PM GMT
    Riddler is so predictable.

    http://journals.chapman.edu/ojs/index.php/e-Research/article/view/91/311

    Oh and ignorance is bliss!http://www.livescience.com/7486-conservatives-happier-liberals.html

    http://www.good.is/post/only-6-percent-of-scientists-are-republican-is-this-a-problem/

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200612/the-ideological-animal

    In short Liberals are more understanding, more empathetic, more intellectual curious, more free spirited, and less likely to give in to fear.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 2:26 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidRiddler is so predictable.

    http://journals.chapman.edu/ojs/index.php/e-Research/article/view/91/311

    Oh and ignorance is bliss!http://www.livescience.com/7486-conservatives-happier-liberals.html

    http://www.good.is/post/only-6-percent-of-scientists-are-republican-is-this-a-problem/

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200612/the-ideological-animal

    In short Liberals are more understanding, more empathetic, more intellectual curious, more free spirited, and less likely to give in to fear.


    Except that as noted, above liberals simply aren't - and self identified Republicans are more educated on the issues based again on GSS data.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 2:59 PM GMT
    Upper_Canadian said...
    2. socalfitness - denounces a TED lecture about the dangers of dogmatism without even listening to it "because he THOUGHT it was by a "liberal" - though it wasn't Would he go back and listen once it was pointed out? Oh no! He condemned ME as dogmatic (forgetting how he himself once identified me as the one Liberal he thought genuinely listened and tried to understand the Right with sincerity icon_rolleyes.gif. Rather than just listen for two minutes , and maybe get an interesting NEW though to consider, instead he complained that I called him on what was prima facie dogmatism.

    My conclusion based on these observations is these guys on the right are not stupid, just intellectually lazy.

    You completely mischaracterized my position and only reflected based on your own perspective. If people went to the thread in question, they could make their own conclusions and hear my position in addition to yours. You also completely lack class in bringing me up in a thread in which I had not participated. There was a good chance I would not have seen this and had the chance to respond. But as I said in the other thread, your arguments are weak and your view is extremely narrow.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 3:25 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidRiddler is so predictable.

    http://journals.chapman.edu/ojs/index.php/e-Research/article/view/91/311

    Oh and ignorance is bliss!http://www.livescience.com/7486-conservatives-happier-liberals.html

    http://www.good.is/post/only-6-percent-of-scientists-are-republican-is-this-a-problem/

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200612/the-ideological-animal

    In short Liberals are more understanding, more empathetic, more intellectual curious, more free spirited, and less likely to give in to fear.


    Except that as noted, above liberals simply aren't - and self identified Republicans are more educated on the issues based again on GSS data.



    My data contradicts your data and is done by actual scientists...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 3:36 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    riddler78 said
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidRiddler is so predictable.

    http://journals.chapman.edu/ojs/index.php/e-Research/article/view/91/311

    Oh and ignorance is bliss!http://www.livescience.com/7486-conservatives-happier-liberals.html

    http://www.good.is/post/only-6-percent-of-scientists-are-republican-is-this-a-problem/

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200612/the-ideological-animal

    In short Liberals are more understanding, more empathetic, more intellectual curious, more free spirited, and less likely to give in to fear.


    Except that as noted, above liberals simply aren't - and self identified Republicans are more educated on the issues based again on GSS data.



    My data contradicts your data and is done by actual scientists...


    My data comes from a larger dataset than yours and is also conducted by actual scientists.