GOP'ish candidates

[TracyCoxx]

p.s. I am rather surprised by a move that Romney made. He's always struck me as someone who couldn't give a crap about space. In response to Newt's speeches on space he's said he's going to put together a team and study it. And I'm thinking, oh no, here we go again with another think tank to tell us what we all know, that Nasa should be X Y & Z but that Nasa is underfunded, but this time we're going to fund it, but then it never really gets funded and we're back to square one again.

You don't need another space commission to figure it out. The Aldridge Commission got it exactly right. They put together a plan for a space program that wasn't just about putting foot prints on the moon, or attempting to inspire kids with visions of astronauts floating around in the space station slurping up floating balls of tang. They saw the solar system as a place full of resources that could be tapped and put together a plan to build up our capabilities in space to live off the land and get it done. Obama had another commission, which concluded the Aldridge commission was right, but that it would cost more money. Unfortunately at that time Obama was done giving out trillion dollar bills, and the extra 3 billion was just too much. And I wasn't interested in Romney's commission doing the same thing over again and coming up with the same answer again while wasting another few years and more money.

Then I heard who his advisers are: Robert Crippen, Gene Cernan, and Michael Griffin. Three people... well maybe two (Robert Crippen's a great guy who was in the right place at the right time, but I'm talking about the elites) of probably around 10 who really could do this right. The best of the best. And Romney has them? He couldn't possibly know what to do with them.

[transjen]

So Mitt admits he can care less about poor people no surpise there after all he's GOP
then comes the lie he quickly states the poor have safetynets so they are fine
Excuss me but the GOP have for decades wanted and do everything they can to ripe to shreds any safenets that help the poor after all safenets that help the poor is socialism
So the poor have safetynets which he and the rest of the GOP have stated time and time agian there goal is to do away with all safety nets
Just a anoter from the GOP
Jerseygirl Jen

ps remember that an aborted baby can't grow up to become a died solider

[randolph]

The GOPers know the poor don't vote.

[randolph]

Watching the campaign rhetoric and behavior of the candidates, it's not hard to agree with some of the following.


From Huffpost,

Are racists dumb? Do conservatives tend to be less intelligent than liberals? A provocative new study from Brock University in Ontario suggests the answer to both questions may be a qualified yes.
The study, published in Psychological Science, showed that people who score low on I.Q. tests in childhood are more likely to develop prejudiced beliefs and socially conservative politics in adulthood.
I.Q., or intelligence quotient, is a score determined by standardized tests, but whether the tests truly reveal intelligence remains a topic of hot debate among psychologists.
Dr. Gordon Hodson, a professor of psychology at the university and the study's lead author, said the finding represented evidence of a vicious cycle: People of low intelligence gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, which stress resistance to change and, in turn, prejudice, he told LiveScience.
Why might less intelligent people be drawn to conservative ideologies? Because such ideologies feature "structure and order" that make it easier to comprehend a complicated world, Dodson said. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice," he added.
Dr. Brian Nosek, a University of Virginia psychologist, echoed those sentiments.
"Reality is complicated and messy," he told The Huffington Post in an email. "Ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simpler solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies."

But Nosek said less intelligent types might be attracted to liberal "simplifying ideologies" as well as conservative ones.
In any case, the study has taken the Internet by storm, with some outspoken liberals saying that it validates their suspicions about conservatives and conservatives arguing that the research has been misinterpreted.
What do you think? Do conservatives tend to be less intelligent? Or is this just political opinion masquerading as science?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Watching the campaign rhetoric and behavior of the candidates, it's not hard to agree with some of the following.


From Huffpost,

]]

I would agree with that about social conservatives. They're typified by right wing religious anti science conservatives such as those who have hijacked the tea party. I would also say that coming up with a balanced budget is a pretty easy IQ test. One which both parties fail at and Obama, Pelosi and other progressives spectacularly so.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

]]

I would agree with that about social conservatives. They're typified by right wing religious anti science conservatives such as those who have hijacked the tea party. I would also say that coming up with a balanced budget is a pretty easy IQ test. One which both parties fail at and Obama, Pelosi and other progressives spectacularly so.

Please tell me who has come up with a balanced budget in the past thirty years? It seems just about all politicians are stupid.

[randolph]

Some more food for thought.

Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?

1. Jaime L. Napier and
2. John T. Jost

+ Author Affiliations

1. New York University

1. Jaime L. Napier, Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10003?6634, e-mail: jnapier@nyu.edu.

Abstract

In this research, we drew on system-justification theory and the notion that conservative ideology serves a palliative function to explain why conservatives are happier than liberals. Specifically, in three studies using nationally representative data from the United States and nine additional countries, we found that right-wing (vs. left-wing) orientation is indeed associated with greater subjective well-being and that the relation between political orientation and subjective well-being is mediated by the rationalization of inequality. In our third study, we found that increasing economic inequality (as measured by the Gini index) from 1974 to 2004 has exacerbated the happiness gap between liberals and conservatives, apparently because conservatives (more than liberals) possess an ideological buffer against the negative hedonic effects of economic inequality.

Personally, I think this is BS. All the conservatives I know are pissed off all the time. LOL

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

Watching the campaign rhetoric and behavior of the candidates, it's not hard to agree with some of the following.


From Huffpost,

Junk science masquerading as legitimate fact.