It was so long before I asserted it. Stupid people don't do as well as smart people. People who aren't doing well gravitate to librulism. Ergo - libruls on average are less intelligent. This is common sense and we all know it. The democrat party has cultivated the stupid as a major constituency.
Premise your assertion!
Anecdotal evidence that the poor also gravitate toward conservatism along with the stupid.
I thought liberals believed IQ scores were meaningless, and racially biased to boot. I guess they become meaningful when used to score political points, but not when used for admission to college/
i believe you're making up stereotypes in your mind. my guess is that you did this to help stem insecurities about your own lack of intelligence.
You can't really go off of what Faux Nooz says about liberals and think you know about liberalism. Power to the people!
I know more about librulism than all you nimrods combined.
It must really bother you that you have to live through 4 more years of having a black president. How much does it bother you?
the logical falacies here are near endless. There are no "factors associated with the liberal base" as you attempt to assert. Liberals tend to be more educated, in fact 2.5 grade levels, than conservatives but the correlation is unproven, do liberals become more educated or do the more educated tend to become liberal. Income is a function of education however I have yet to find any statistical demonstration of conservative vs liberal income. Criminal records? So do criminals become liberals or do liberals gravitate toward crime? - and "being black"? are you attempting to show that black people are less intelligent than whites?
Yeah, I am really insecure about my lack of intelligence. It makes my palms sweat to engage in debate with self-professed progressives. Modern Liberalism's many accomplishments, like the war on poverty that ended with the unconditional surrender of poverty, are just intimidating. Personally, I prefer classical liberalism; that was a time before "liberal" became a dirty word and had to be changed to "progressive" as a self descriptor.
So how is classical liberalism compatible with supporting colonialism?
Who says I support colonialism? Do you wish for a world before colonialism, you know, circa 600 AD?
The heyday of classical liberalism was contemporaneous with a very colonial Europe. In another thread, you praised Cecil Rhodes for the prosperity that was undone when an indigenous leader arose. This was in a thread speculating that slavery had a positive effect so speculation was called for. Thanks for African prosperity Cecil Rhodes, I'm sure Africa loves the lasting effects.
Surely, you don't expect me to stick to the topic of the thread? In the "Trayvon" thread yesterday, people were trading recipes and diet tips.
All I have come to expect from you is a worthy debate challenge, and a little casual racism from time to time.
I am happy to debate but the racism charge is an ugly thing to say and not true.