Quote from: kramarat on July 29, 2012, 07:59:04 PM
Long time, no hear.........................bell curve genious.

This is fairly old news, and a quick google search will find you a host of independent studies leading to the same conclusion.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-26/health/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence_1_sexual-behaviors-liberalism-exclusivity?_s=PM:HEALTH

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/high_iq_liberal_atheist_monogamous_/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/liberalism-atheism-linked-to-high-iq

http://www.examiner.com/article/atheism-linked-to-high-iq-once-again

Additionally, I could cite studies in which atheists are more knowledgeable on bible passages than theists, that Fox news watchers know less about politics than those who do not watch the news at all, and that more fervently conservative states have significantly higher rates of teen pregnancy and gay suicides.

Quote
To concede my point, would mean that there wasn't a point to begin with.................therefore, conceding my point would be impossible. One cannot concede, that which never existed.

Hint hint: you claimed MLK was a conservative.  I just provided video footage, showing the man himself, clearly espousing what are undeniably liberal viewpoints.

Quote
I would suggest that you listen to the words of Martin Luther King, himself, as well as his living relatives. Apparently they are not getting the warm, fuzzy feelings about Margaret Sanger, and her plan to decimate black people, as one would expect.

I look forward to an intelligent thought from you. Completely out of place, but I'm proud of you, for knowing the word, "concede". One day you may actually be able to use it in a coherent sentence.

For me to concede my point.......................makes no fugking sense. Try again, you little lap dog.

Hint: when someone provides primary video evidence, you'd best concede the point or actually address the footage, rather than attempt to change the subject.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 30, 2012, 11:51:45 AM
This is fairly old news, and a quick google search will find you a host of independent studies leading to the same conclusion.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-26/health/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence_1_sexual-behaviors-liberalism-exclusivity?_s=PM:HEALTH

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/high_iq_liberal_atheist_monogamous_/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/liberalism-atheism-linked-to-high-iq

http://www.examiner.com/article/atheism-linked-to-high-iq-once-again

Additionally, I could cite studies in which atheists are more knowledgeable on bible passages than theists, that Fox news watchers know less about politics than those who do not watch the news at all, and that more fervently conservative states have significantly higher rates of teen pregnancy and gay suicides.

Hint hint: you claimed MLK was a conservative.  I just provided video footage, showing the man himself, clearly espousing what are undeniably liberal viewpoints.

Hint: when someone provides primary video evidence, you'd best concede the point or actually address the footage, rather than attempt to change the subject.

His niece makes it sound as if his values would have leaned towards conservatism. But I'll admit............you may be right.

If this guy's defense of MLK as a liberal, is accurate, the left can have him. I'll concede. I was making him into a much better man than he actually was.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html

Wait - so, after you realize MLK Jr was a liberal, and not a conservative, your opinion of his moral character immediately changes as a result?  And conveniently enough, you just happen to pull out a site to support your sudden change in viewpoint.   

"MLK supported X, Y and Z, and he was a conservative!  Oh, wait, he was a liberal?  Ah...uh, MLK was a liberal, but he wasn't that great, and X, Y and Z were evil liberal plots!"

Although I commend your ability to concede the point, even if it's coupled with a ridiculously transparent flip-flop that makes Romney's worst seem harmless and innocent in comparison.

Liberal atheists produce a study which "proves" that - SURPRISE - liberal atheists, are "smarter" than the common run of humanity. Who woulda thunk! 

Quote from: mdgiles on July 30, 2012, 02:56:00 PM
Liberal atheists produce a study which "proves" that - SURPRISE - liberal atheists, are "smarter" than the common run of humanity. Who woulda thunk! 

Do you find any flaws in their methodology?  Do you find any evidence of prejudice?  Do you posses any studies demonstrating the contrary?  Or are you just dismissing any study you find inconvenient on a whim?  Did you even read the article?  Be honest here, and pretend that these question are not rhetorical.

It's not as though the fact that scientists and those with doctorates tend to be religious is a wild notion.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 30, 2012, 02:54:33 PM
Wait - so, after you realize MLK Jr was a liberal, and not a conservative, your opinion of his moral character immediately changes as a result?  And conveniently enough, you just happen to pull out a site to support your sudden change in viewpoint.   

"MLK supported X, Y and Z, and he was a conservative!  Oh, wait, he was a liberal?  Ah...uh, MLK was a liberal, but he wasn't that great, and X, Y and Z were evil liberal plots!"

Although I commend your ability to concede the point, even if it's coupled with a ridiculously transparent flip-flop that makes Romney's worst seem harmless and innocent in comparison.

Yep. I got suckered by the popular misconception that King was a great guy. If the myth link is accurate, I've got to flip flop. It appears to be written by someone much like yourself, and he proudly proclaims that King was not a patriot, didn't like capitalism, was pro communism, didn't like the free market, as well as regularly cheating on his wife......................what's to like?

His niece sounds like a solid conservative, but she may be delusional. Listening to her, is where I got the impression that her uncle leaned conservative. I figured that a family member would know. She makes it sound like he wouldn't like the wholesale slaughter of blacks, through Planned Parenthood abortions. But he received a Margaret Sanger award in 1966, so I'm assuming he would be fine with it, as well as the "special treatment" that many blacks have been given by the left. Packed in tenement buildings and subsisting on government hand outs.

I'd think that King would have been well aware of the history of racism within the democrat party.................I guess he chose to overlook it.

Quote from: kramarat on July 30, 2012, 04:58:36 PM
Yep. I got suckered by the popular misconception that King was a great guy.

You take that conservative = good and liberal = evil as a given, to the point in which all liberals must be evil, no matter how noble their accomplishments.

While I am using nobility to paint liberals in a positive light...you are using liberalism to paint nobility in a negative light!   

Quote
If the myth link is accurate, I've got to flip flop. It appears to be written by someone much like yourself, and he proudly proclaims that King was not a patriot, didn't like capitalism, was pro communism, didn't like the free market, as well as regularly cheating on his wife......................what's to like?

Actually, the vast majority of the site stems from efforts by the asshole FBI chief to discredit King, because he suspected the civil rights movement to have been infiltrated by communists.

Kind of puts a dent on the idea that the civil rights movement had even the shadow of conservatism driving it, when they were all suspected of being leftist loons.

Quote
His niece sounds like a solid conservative, but she may be delusional. Listening to her, is where I got the impression that her uncle leaned conservative. I figured that a family member would know. She makes it sound like he wouldn't like the wholesale slaughter of blacks, through Planned Parenthood abortions. But he received a Margaret Sanger award in 1966, so I'm assuming he would be fine with it, as well as the "special treatment" that many blacks have been given by the left. Packed in tenement buildings and subsisting on government hand outs.

The problem here is that I was under the impression that we both took "racism = bad" as a given, and that we could base conclusions off of that.  Yet now, you've concluded that "liberals = bad" is such a given, it overrides the former, and we come to "he was a liberal, therefore, all of his actions were bad!"

Now, you'll doubtlessly come around to bashing Einstein as an Evil Socialist, any moment now.

Quote

I'd think that King would have been well aware of the history of racism within the democrat party.................I guess he chose to overlook it.

The two parties switched; I'm sure you know this. 

But here's a question for you:

Name me just five conservatives in American history that supported civil rights.

Obviously, you libs don't visit this site, for a more thorough examination of the horror of abortion within the black community....

http://www.blackgenocide.org

Sanger, openly socialist, was also guest speaker at a KKK rally, in support of her murderous campaign. The photo is on the Internet.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 31, 2012, 06:12:15 AM
You take that conservative = good and liberal = evil as a given, to the point in which all liberals must be evil, no matter how noble their accomplishments.

While I am using nobility to paint liberals in a positive light...you are using liberalism to paint nobility in a negative light!   


Actually, the vast majority of the site stems from efforts by the asshole FBI chief to discredit King, because he suspected the civil rights movement to have been infiltrated by communists.

Kind of puts a dent on the idea that the civil rights movement had even the shadow of conservatism driving it, when they were all suspected of being leftist loons.

The problem here is that I was under the impression that we both took "racism = bad" as a given, and that we could base conclusions off of that.  Yet now, you've concluded that "liberals = bad" is such a given, it overrides the former, and we come to "he was a liberal, therefore, all of his actions were bad!"

Now, you'll doubtlessly come around to bashing Einstein as an Evil Socialist, any moment now.


The two parties switched; I'm sure you know this. 

But here's a question for you:

Name me just five conservatives in American history that supported civil rights.

It's not necessarily a good vs evil thing. Conservatives want to stick by America's founding principles..............liberals want to change them. Those of us that don't want the country changed, and to have to live under a massive centralized authority, believe that liberalism is bad for the country..............particularly, when it morphs into socialism, which is what we are experiencing now.

Here you go: Be sure to click on the links. Lots of fact that you won't like.

http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

Quote from: kramarat on July 31, 2012, 12:22:00 PM

http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

Kramarat, you should put the address in the Library for reference.   

Quote from: walkstall on July 31, 2012, 12:51:22 PM
Kramarat, you should put the address in the Library for reference.

Will do. It's a good site. Of course, I'm sure sci fi will say, that the site is run by a stupid, ass kissing, Uncle Tom, that has forgotten his place on the social ladder, that the left has provided for him. You know................like Clarence Thomas.

Quote from: kramarat on July 31, 2012, 12:22:00 PM
It's not necessarily a good vs evil thing. Conservatives want to stick by America's founding principles..............

OK then.  So name me five conservatives who have fought for civil rights.

Quoteliberals want to change them.

Opposing the changing of the status quo for any reason would imply that the status quo is perfect.

QuoteThose of us that don't want the country changed,

Which doesn't make any sense at all, because most of the liberties we take for granted came from change. 

Abolition, integration and female suffrage were all changes to our nation.  Your own definition of conservatism means that the right opposed these advancements.

QuoteOK then.  So name me five conservatives who have fought for civil rights.

Do it yourself.
http://stoprepublicans.blogspot.com/2006/05/history-of-republican-evil.html

QuoteOpposing the changing of the status quo for any reason would imply that the status quo is perfect.

You're altering my words. I wasn't talking about changing the status quo, I was talking about changing the very foundation of the country. The US Constitution, is probably the closest thing to a perfect document that's ever been written.

QuoteWhich doesn't make any sense at all, because most of the liberties we take for granted came from change.

It makes perfect sense. We had this little scuffle called the revolutionary war. We gained our freedom from the british, and created a new form of government. It's covered in the constitution. You should read it.

Quote from: kramarat on July 31, 2012, 02:25:33 PM
Do it yourself.
http://stoprepublicans.blogspot.com/2006/05/history-of-republican-evil.html

Hint hint wink wink; the two parties switched ideologies.  That's why the solid south turned republican.  That's why the 19th century democratic position was fanatically pro states' rights.  Republicans were the first to levy an income tax.

Quote
You're altering my words. I wasn't talking about changing the status quo, I was talking about changing the very foundation of the country. The US Constitution, is probably the closest thing to a perfect document that's ever been written.

Name one liberal policy that seeks to alter the foundation of the United States, state the foundation and state your evidence that such a foundation exists.

Quote
It makes perfect sense. We had this little scuffle called the revolutionary war. We gained our freedom from the british, and created a new form of government. It's covered in the constitution. You should read it.

We created a new form of government, which failed miserably, and then had to completely rewrite it.  That is certainly a hit on the conservative position that the founders were gods in human form. 

QuoteName one liberal policy that seeks to alter the foundation of the United States, state the foundation and state your evidence that such a foundation exists.

Um, Obamacare would be the most recent example. Do you live under a rock, or in your parent's basement?

Government can now force us to buy anything they tell us to. Refusal will be met with IRS agents, and possible imprisonment.