George Washington (via fancypanda)asderathos)
Anonymous asked: On the Bundy issue, the Feds have gone through court for years and Bundy has lost every time. At this point any further court action would be waste of time and money.
I understand that, but they haven’t put a lien on his property. That would ensure payment would be made and eliminate 80% of the drama around the issue. I still say you do NOT send armed tac teams to collect money. Unless the debtor threatens your agents, you do not need to escalate things further by pointing a gun at them.
I’m not saying that being conservative automatically makes a person stupid. It’s just that their stupidity might make them more inclined to be.
Another flawless argument.
That joke barely makes sense, but isn’t this what is to be expected from a blogged named “LiberalPropagandaGroup”?
Well, aren’t we just a cheeky little dipshit.
Then again, given the measurable and statistically significant correlation between a lower IQ and conservative positions, this isn’t all that shocking.
Oh no! Eli here has pulled out the quasi-scientific theory of one quack as “measured and statistically significant correlation.”
First off, this is one man’s highly flawed and contested opinion. As Time Magazine reviewed it:
So, the theory goes, genes for intelligence got wrapped up with genes for unnatural thinking.
It’s an elegant theory, but based on Kanazawa’s own evidence, I’m not sure he’s right. In his paper, Kanazawa begins by noting, accurately, that psychologists don’t have a good understanding of why people embrace the values they do. Many kids share their parents’ values, but at the same time many adolescents define themselves in opposition to what their parents believe. We know that most people firm up their values when they are in their 20s, but some people experience conversions to new religions, new political parties, new artistic tastes and even new cuisines after middle age. As Kanazawa notes, this multiplicity of views — a multiplicity you find within both cultures and individuals — is one reason economists have largely abandoned the study of values with a single Latin phrase, De gustibus non est disputandum: there’s no accounting for taste.
As far as the “measured and statistically significant correlation” of the study:
Kanazawa quotes from two surveys that support the hypothesis that liberals are more intelligent. One is the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which is often called Add Health. The other is the General Social Survey (GSS). The Add Health study shows that the mean IQ of adolescents who identify themselves as “very liberal” is 106, compared with a mean IQ of 95 for those calling themselves “very conservative.” The Add Health study is huge — more than 20,000 kids — and this difference is highly statistically significant.
But self-identification is often misleading; do kids really know what it means to be liberal? The GSS data are instructive here: Kanazawa found that more-intelligent GSS respondents (as measured by a quick but highly reliable synonym test) were less likely to agree that the government has a responsibility to reduce income and wealth differences. In other words, intelligent people might like to portray themselves as liberal. But in the end, they know that it’s good to be the king.
You like links? I’ve got links too, you big dope.
We could go at this all day, but essentially we’d just be tossing useless theories back and forth, when deep down we both know there is little to no truth in any of them, only conjecture and random theories. Then again, liberals love to cross the lines between theory and fact. The link you threw at me with like a wet napkin has been used a thousand times online by libs as definitive study…which it isn’t. So, nice try. You’re really starting to live up to your blog title…liberal propaganda indeed.
OP Got owned. lol
Jeb Bush— the only Bush that will ever be a good president
AND HE IS REPUBLICAN
AND I STILL CONSIDER MYSELF A DEMOCRAT
He may be a Republican, but he’s just as Progressive as Obama or Clinton. Two sides to the same government control coin.
And Rand Paul isn’t all that much better either.
On the Cliven Bundy issue…
When I first heard of this issue, I was staunchly for the Bundys and their cause. The more I’ve looked into the matter though, the more I’ve come to distance myself from them and some of their supporters. I am definitely not on the feds side, but I can no longer stand with the Bundys. Here’s a breakdown:
- They have used excessive force for something that should have been litigated in court. I’m sorry, you DO NOT point a gun at somebody who poses no threat to your life and who’s only crime is owing money. The seizure of the Bundy’s property, the cattle, was excessive and shows the length a bloated government will go to send a message. When the Bundys lose the court decision over whether or not they have to pay grazing fees then you put a lien on their property, not point a gun at their heads. Period.
- Cliven Bundy’s alleged racist remarks notwithstanding, the sentiment behind his civil disobedience seems sound. The federal government wields too much power of the daily lives of it’s citizens and needs to be reigned in. That said, the land he is disputing has never been state land and has been in federal stewardship since 1848. That’s before Nevada was even a state. If you wish to change that, you do not refuse to pay grazing fees (a practice dating back to before there was even a United States) and continue to graze your cattle on land that is not yours. You can make the claim that the land is public and thus gives you the right to do what you wish on it, but then what of the next guy? He has just as much right to do what he wishes with the land as you do. Add on top of that those who rallied around him who are publicly looking for way to start a war, you end up with a dangerous mix that will end in tragedy.
Bottom line: I will always stand for small, limited government and the Constitution. I will stand with those that wish to get the federal government out of our daily lives, including owning land. But I will not stand with those who look to subvert the rule of law without going through their legislative process. This is not 1770 where we have no representation and have no outlet to litigate grievances.
The pen comes before the sword. There is a time and place for everything, but this is not it.
Absolutely disgusting. A bunch of hippies want to have their festival on Bundy’s property in order to mock him for being a conservative and “how dare he be against the government taking his cattle.” and I fucking despise hippies.
They are being a’holes, but it isn’t on the Bundy’s land. It’s across the street. Interesting note: They say they are going to follow Bundy’s example and will not be getting a permit for the festival. It will be interesting to see what the feds do to the other side.