Are Liberals Smarter? Study Indicates The Answer Is YES

[blacken700]

Two interesting new studies have come out during this election season, which might have liberals and conservatives at odds more than ever. Last year, a study done at Brock University suggested that a lower I.Q. goes hand in hand with both racism and conservative beliefs. The findings are published in Psychological Science and the study is entitled “Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact.” Essentially, the study examines the impact of cognitive ability on social attitudes like prejudice and conservatism. The authors predicted that a lower cognitive ability, as measured by the subject’s intelligence quotient or I.Q., would lead to greater social prejudice in adulthood. The authors also hypothesized beforehand that the social prejudice would lead the subjects to endorse “right-wing ideologies”, namely “social conservatism” and “right-wing authoritarianism.”
 



Turns out, the authors were right on all counts. In the U.K., people with lower I.Q.’s in childhood were accurately predicted to be racists in adulthood and were also generally politically conservative. A second set of data from the U.S. found that people with lower cognitive abilities possessed more homophobic sentiments. Interestingly, the results were controlled for education and socioeconomic status, making the results applicable to a wider spectrum of people. The authors wound up suggesting “a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models.”
 



The lead author, Dr. Gordon Hodson, believes that the results are cyclical: people with lower I.Q.’s tend to be more prejudiced, which leads them more readily toward conservatism, which is resistant to change, which eventually, leads to more prejudice. Another recent study gives us an idea of why these results might be so: ProCon.org assembled a list of 13 different peer-reviewed studies which conclude that liberals and conservatives might not just have different talking points, they actually have different brains.




Each of the studies examined different elements of dissimilarity between liberals and conservatives and had interesting results. Democrats, it seems, have a greater tolerance for uncertainty have because of their larger anterior cingulate cortexes, and Republicans are more sensitive to fear, because of their larger right amygdalas. Psychiatrist Greg Appelbaum also found that conservatives are more likely to avoid individual self-harm, while liberals are more likely to avoid collective group harm. The researchers said it was important to keep in mind that it might not be that a person’s predisposition to certain neurological markers leads to their political affiliation and in fact, it may be a “chicken or the egg issue”, where a person’s political affiliation can actually change their physiological traits.
 




cont'

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/19/are-liberals-smarter-study-indicates-the-answer-is-yes/
 

[garebear]

Republicans would be nowhere without the stupid vote.

Not saying there aren't dumb democrats, but republicans rely heavily on the uninformed.

[chadstallion]

countdown to reply from:
333386
Mcway

they will offer a rebuttal to the 'study'.

[240 is Back]

Here's the thing -

We can put 20 people in a room.
Ten of them will be rachel maddow, George soros, and 8 other highly educated/wealthy people who are liberals.

Then of them can be average people, let's choose florida high school dropouts.  Grab em out of the trailer park even, I'll pick em up myself.  They aren't "smart" by IQ test standards, but they all have Romney/Ryan signs in their yard.

Only a fool would argue the 2nd group of dropouts is "smarter" - However, one CAN argue the 1st group is misguided, lack common sense, are in denial, etc.  But "smart", no, statistically, those with higher IQ vote more left - that's not something we can argue, it's been shown over and over.  I think one thing taught in college is "profit from the hard work of others" - in my MBA program, they didn't teach me to dig ditches, they taught me to organize a firm to profit from others digging ditches - does that make sense?  They TEACH you do try to do less work for more money in college - and that's a lot of what obama promises... Repubs might not have the same book smarts, but hand them a shovel and perhaps their work ethic is much higher, who knows.

[Archer77]

The poor dumb whites in this country who now break for the republicans used to vote heavily Democrat before the implementation of the southern strategy and union busting dismantled the United States manufacturing base. 

[whork]

No the people who believes earth was created 2000 years ago, that believes you cant get pregnant from rape, that believed Romney would win in a landslide etc etc is the smart ones.

[garebear]

The poor dumb whites in this country who now break for the republicans used to vote heavily Democrat before the implementation of the southern strategy and union busting dismantled the United States manufacturing base. 

This is a great, and largely forgotten, point.

To any academic student of politics, this is a given. Even those on the right are not arguing it.

However, it just goes to show the revisionist history that is allowed to propagate in the bubble that people have, by and large, forgotten this.

I get so tired of uneducated people not knowing this, that I've almost entirely given up the fight. McWay, for one, simply refuses to believe it.

I even told a family member, on FB, and he claimed that it was some conspiracy. It's disappointing, to say the least.

[MCWAY]

This is a great, and largely forgotten, point.

To any academic student of politics, this is a given. Even those on the right are not arguing it.

Apparently, you haven't seen Ann Coulter's book, "Mugged', for example

Liberals have accounted for Democratic losses in the southeast to what has become known as the GOP’s “southern strategy.” Conservative author Ann Coulter debunks the “southern strategy” excuse in her new book “Mugged.”

The single most important piece of evidence for the Republicans’ alleged southern strategy is President Johnson’s statement, after signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, tat “we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.” That self-serving quote is cited by liberals with more solemnity than Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Johnson’s statement is of questionable provenance. The sole source for the quote is LBJ assistant Bill Moyers, whose other work for the president included hunting for gays on Barry Goldwater’s staff and monitoring the FBI’s bugs on Martin Luther King’s hotel room, then distributing the tapes to select members of the Johnson administration and the press. If this were my case-in-chief for an important point, I’d want better sourcing than a sanctimonious liberal fraud.

A source for information about LBJ who is not a partisan hack, dirty trickster and MLK-adultery publicist is Robert M. MacMillan, Air Force One steward during the Johnson administration. Macmillan reports that when LBJ was flying on Air Force One with two governors once, he boasted, “I’ll have them n*****s voting Democratic for two hundred years.”

Coulter goes on to show that LBJ continually rejected civil rights bills proposed by only Republicans and it was not until 1964, when Johnson finally signed the civil rights act with very little help from his fellow Democrats in Congress. Even after the passage of the civil rights act, Democrats continued to win elections in former segregationist states all the way through the election of George H.W. Bush despite the folklore of the GOP “southern strategy.”


 http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/oct/8/picket-coulter-shreds-southern-strategy-myth-gop-s/#ixzz2Cn2WDvsT

However, it just goes to show the revisionist history that is allowed to propagate in the bubble that people have, by and large, forgotten this.

I get so tired of uneducated people not knowing this, that I've almost entirely given up the fight. McWay, for one, simply refuses to believe it.

I even told a family member, on FB, and he claimed that it was some conspiracy. It's disappointing, to say the least.

I refuse to believe it, because the evidence there shows such isn't the case. The last time we talked about this, I gave at least two specific examples: Robert Byrd and Al Gore, Sr: Two card-carrying members of the Klan who were Dems until the day they died, the former eulogized by Bill Clinton, who tried to explain away Byrd's Klan afiillation as simply being a political necessity.

But, don't take my word for it:

As a result of unrelenting efforts by Democrats to shift their racist past onto the backs of Republicans, using the mantra: "the parties switched sides", a lot of people have requested an article addressing this issue.

It does not make sense to believe that racist Democrats suddenly rushed into the Republican Party, especially after Republicans spent nearly 150 years fighting for black civil rights.  In fact, the racist Democrats declared they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.

From the time of its inception in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, the Republican Party has always been the party of freedom and equality for blacks.  As author Michael Scheuer wrote, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S's:  slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.  Democrats have been running black communities for the past 50+ years, and the socialist policies of the Democrats have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands.

An alarming view of what America will be like in a few years due to unbridled socialism being pushed by President Barack Obama and his Democratic Party cohorts, is contained in the article:  "Detroit: The Moral of the Story" by Kevin D. Williamson that is posted on the Internet.

Democrats first used brutality and discriminatory laws to stop blacks from voting for Republicans.  Democrats now use deception and government handouts to keep blacks from voting for Republicans.   In his book, "Dreams From My Father," Obama described what he and other Democrats do to poor blacks as "plantation politics."

The racist Democrats of the 1950's and 1960's that Republicans were fighting died Democrats.  One racist Democrat who survived until 2010 was US Senator Robert Byrd, a former recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan.  Notably, the Ku Klux Klan was started by Democrats in 1866 and became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party for the purpose of terrorizing and lynching Republicans—black and white.   Byrd became a prominent leader in the Democrat-controlled Congress where he was honored by his fellow Democrats as the "conscience of the Senate."

Byrd was a fierce opponent of desegregating the military and complained in one letter:  "I would rather die a thousand times and see old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds."

Democrats denounced US Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about US Senator Strom Thurmond.  However, there was silence when Democrat US Senator Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment."  Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and, after he became a Republican, Thurmond defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats.

While turning a blind eye to how the Democratic Party embraced Byrd until his death, Democrats regularly lambaste the Republican Party about David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

Ignored are the facts that the Republican Party never embraced Duke and when he ran for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1992, Republican Party officials tried to block his participation.  Hypocritical is the word for how Democrats also ignore Duke's long participation in the Democratic Party with no efforts by Democrats to block him.  Below is Duke's political history in Louisiana, which has an open primary system.

Duke ran for Louisiana State Senator as a Democrat in 1975.  He ran again for the Louisiana State Senate in 1979 as a Democrat.  In 1988, he made a bid for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.  Then, on election day in 1988, he had himself  listed on the presidential ballot as an "Independent Populist."  After his unbroken string of losses as a Democrat and an Independent Populist, Duke decided to describe himself as a Republican, then ran the following races where he lost every time: in 1989 he ran for Louisiana State Representative; in 1990, he ran for US Senator; in 1991 he ran for Governor of Louisiana; in 1992 he ran for president; in 1996 he ran for US Senator; and in 1999 he ran for US Representative.

Contrary to popular belief, President Lyndon Johnson did not predict a racist exodus to the Republican Party from the Democratic Party because of Johnson's support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Omitted from the Democrats' rewritten history is what Johnson actually meant by his prediction.

Johnson feared that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short-lived States Rights Democratic Party. In fact, Alabama's Democrat Governor George C. Wallace in 1968 started the American Independent Party that attracted other racist candidates, including Democrat Governor Lester Maddox.

Behind closed doors, Johnson said:  "These Negroes, they're getting uppity these days.  That's a problem for us, since they got something now they never had before.  The political pull to back up their upityness.  Now, we've got to do something about this.  We've got to give them a little something.  Just enough to quiet them down, but not enough to make a difference.  If we don't move at all, their allies will line up against us.  And there'll be no way to stop them.  It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Johnson, who pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  In fact, Dirksen was instrumental to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968.  Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.

Democrats condemn Republican President Richard Nixon for his so-called "Southern Strategy."  These same Democrats expressed no concern when the racially segregated South voted solidly for Democrats for over 100 years, while deriding Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party.

The "Southern Strategy" that began in the 1970's was an effort by Nixon to get fair-minded people in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were discriminating against blacks.  Georgia did not switch until 2004, and Louisiana was controlled by Democrats until the election of Republican Bobby Jindal, a person of color, as governor in 2007.

http://blackrepublican.blogspot.com/2012/06/republicans-and-democrats-did-not.html

[LurkerNoMore]

 

[MCWAY]

Yet, 63% of voters without a high school diploma went for Obama in 2008 and 64% in 2012. Besides, there are college degrees and there are college degrees.

In addition, those who made less than $50,000 a year went solidly for Obama; Those who made $50,000 or more went for Romney.

Hmmm.....that might explain why the big push to get people on food stamps and to keep funding failing public schools, which hurt minorities the most.

[Archer77]

Y Besides, there are college degrees and there are college degrees.

Expand on this please

[MCWAY]

Expand on this please

In other words, there are degrees in liberal arts and there are degrees in engineering.

There are degrees in English and there are degrees in nursing.

To put it succintly, there's a difference between getting a degree in something that's practically worthless and getting a degree, in a field where you can actually do such things as feed yourself, clothe yourself, and put a roof over your head.

Without that breakdown, simply having a college degree doesn't tell the whole story.

[Archer77]

In other words, there are degrees in liberal arts and there are degrees in engineering.

There are degrees in English and there are degrees in nursing.

To put it succintly, there's a difference between getting a degree in something that's practically worthless and getting a degree, in a field where you can actually do such things as feed yourself, clothe yourself, and put a roof over your head.

Without that breakdown, simply having a college degree doesn't tell the whole story.

So something like a History degree would have no practical purpose?

[MCWAY]

So something like a History degree would have no practical purpose?

It could, as a teacher or a museum curator.

If you're into the Civil War and live in Virginia, you could clean up.

[Necrosis]

In other words, there are degrees in liberal arts and there are degrees in engineering.

There are degrees in English and there are degrees in nursing.

To put it succintly, there's a difference between getting a degree in something that's practically worthless and getting a degree, in a field where you can actually do such things as feed yourself, clothe yourself, and put a roof over your head.

Without that breakdown, simply having a college degree doesn't tell the whole story.

this is accurate for earning potential, however, a degree is still a higher form of education and I expect most who earn one to have sharpened their critical thinking skills.

[MCWAY]

this is accurate for earning potential, however, a degree is still a higher form of education and I expect most who earn one to have sharpened their critical thinking skills.

It's as I ask certain college kids, If the landlord put an eviction notice on your door but you don't see it, will your stuff still be on the street?"

[WOOO]

i am smarter than all of you

i would have voted for obama

i would also pass a law to exterminate all republicans

have a nice day

american'ts

[AbrahamG]

i am smarter than all of you

i would have voted for obama

i would also pass a law to exterminate all republicans

have a nice day

american'ts

You da man.

[Dos Equis]

One of the most ridiculous things I've read on the board.  Lots of smart and dumb liberals.  Lots of smart and dumb conservatives.  Nobody has a monopoly on stupid.

But I will say conservatives I've encountered tend to be more informed than liberals.  Certainly not always the case, but that's the trend I've seen.

[Necrosis]

One of the most ridiculous things I've read on the board.  Lots of smart and dumb liberals.  Lots of smart and dumb conservatives.  Nobody has a monopoly on stupid.

But I will say conservatives I've encountered tend to be more informed than liberals.  Certainly not always the case, but that's the trend I've seen.

it's not ridiculous if the study has good methodology. Epidemiological data is sometimes difficult to decipher and find true meaning, but you have to understand that it's pretty clear that the more educated one becomes the more likely they are to vote dem and the higher the IQ the more likely they are to vote dem. Study after study, survey after survey. The south is generally stupid, calm down retards, but the south is generally the lowest of lows in terms of overall education and intelligence levels.

[Dos Equis]

it's not ridiculous if the study has good methodology. Epidemiological data is sometimes difficult to decipher and find true meaning, but you have to understand that it's pretty clear that the more educated one becomes the more likely they are to vote dem and the higher the IQ the more likely they are to vote dem. Study after study, survey after survey. The south is generally stupid, calm down retards, but the south is generally the lowest of lows in terms of overall education and intelligence levels.

What study?  What methodology?  Didn't see any specific empirical research in the "article."

I've spent a lot of time in the south.  They are not "generally stupid." Absurd. 

And no, most intelligent people don't become Democrats.  This stuff is laugh out loud funny.   

[headhuntersix]

Detroit, all of California....yeah

[garebear]

Apparently, you haven't seen Ann Coulter's book, "Mugged', for example

Liberals have accounted for Democratic losses in the southeast to what has become known as the GOP’s “southern strategy.” Conservative author Ann Coulter debunks the “southern strategy” excuse in her new book “Mugged.”

The single most important piece of evidence for the Republicans’ alleged southern strategy is President Johnson’s statement, after signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, tat “we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.” That self-serving quote is cited by liberals with more solemnity than Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Johnson’s statement is of questionable provenance. The sole source for the quote is LBJ assistant Bill Moyers, whose other work for the president included hunting for gays on Barry Goldwater’s staff and monitoring the FBI’s bugs on Martin Luther King’s hotel room, then distributing the tapes to select members of the Johnson administration and the press. If this were my case-in-chief for an important point, I’d want better sourcing than a sanctimonious liberal fraud.

A source for information about LBJ who is not a partisan hack, dirty trickster and MLK-adultery publicist is Robert M. MacMillan, Air Force One steward during the Johnson administration. Macmillan reports that when LBJ was flying on Air Force One with two governors once, he boasted, “I’ll have them n*****s voting Democratic for two hundred years.”

Coulter goes on to show that LBJ continually rejected civil rights bills proposed by only Republicans and it was not until 1964, when Johnson finally signed the civil rights act with very little help from his fellow Democrats in Congress. Even after the passage of the civil rights act, Democrats continued to win elections in former segregationist states all the way through the election of George H.W. Bush despite the folklore of the GOP “southern strategy.”


 http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/oct/8/picket-coulter-shreds-southern-strategy-myth-gop-s/#ixzz2Cn2WDvsT

I refuse to believe it, because the evidence there shows such isn't the case. The last time we talked about this, I gave at least two specific examples: Robert Byrd and Al Gore, Sr: Two card-carrying members of the Klan who were Dems until the day they died, the former eulogized by Bill Clinton, who tried to explain away Byrd's Klan afiillation as simply being a political necessity.

But, don't take my word for it:

As a result of unrelenting efforts by Democrats to shift their racist past onto the backs of Republicans, using the mantra: "the parties switched sides", a lot of people have requested an article addressing this issue.

It does not make sense to believe that racist Democrats suddenly rushed into the Republican Party, especially after Republicans spent nearly 150 years fighting for black civil rights.  In fact, the racist Democrats declared they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.

From the time of its inception in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, the Republican Party has always been the party of freedom and equality for blacks.  As author Michael Scheuer wrote, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S's:  slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.  Democrats have been running black communities for the past 50+ years, and the socialist policies of the Democrats have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands.

An alarming view of what America will be like in a few years due to unbridled socialism being pushed by President Barack Obama and his Democratic Party cohorts, is contained in the article:  "Detroit: The Moral of the Story" by Kevin D. Williamson that is posted on the Internet.

Democrats first used brutality and discriminatory laws to stop blacks from voting for Republicans.  Democrats now use deception and government handouts to keep blacks from voting for Republicans.   In his book, "Dreams From My Father," Obama described what he and other Democrats do to poor blacks as "plantation politics."

The racist Democrats of the 1950's and 1960's that Republicans were fighting died Democrats.  One racist Democrat who survived until 2010 was US Senator Robert Byrd, a former recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan.  Notably, the Ku Klux Klan was started by Democrats in 1866 and became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party for the purpose of terrorizing and lynching Republicans—black and white.   Byrd became a prominent leader in the Democrat-controlled Congress where he was honored by his fellow Democrats as the "conscience of the Senate."

Byrd was a fierce opponent of desegregating the military and complained in one letter:  "I would rather die a thousand times and see old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds."

Democrats denounced US Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about US Senator Strom Thurmond.  However, there was silence when Democrat US Senator Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment."  Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and, after he became a Republican, Thurmond defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats.

While turning a blind eye to how the Democratic Party embraced Byrd until his death, Democrats regularly lambaste the Republican Party about David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

Ignored are the facts that the Republican Party never embraced Duke and when he ran for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1992, Republican Party officials tried to block his participation.  Hypocritical is the word for how Democrats also ignore Duke's long participation in the Democratic Party with no efforts by Democrats to block him.  Below is Duke's political history in Louisiana, which has an open primary system.

Duke ran for Louisiana State Senator as a Democrat in 1975.  He ran again for the Louisiana State Senate in 1979 as a Democrat.  In 1988, he made a bid for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.  Then, on election day in 1988, he had himself  listed on the presidential ballot as an "Independent Populist."  After his unbroken string of losses as a Democrat and an Independent Populist, Duke decided to describe himself as a Republican, then ran the following races where he lost every time: in 1989 he ran for Louisiana State Representative; in 1990, he ran for US Senator; in 1991 he ran for Governor of Louisiana; in 1992 he ran for president; in 1996 he ran for US Senator; and in 1999 he ran for US Representative.

Contrary to popular belief, President Lyndon Johnson did not predict a racist exodus to the Republican Party from the Democratic Party because of Johnson's support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Omitted from the Democrats' rewritten history is what Johnson actually meant by his prediction.

Johnson feared that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short-lived States Rights Democratic Party. In fact, Alabama's Democrat Governor George C. Wallace in 1968 started the American Independent Party that attracted other racist candidates, including Democrat Governor Lester Maddox.

Behind closed doors, Johnson said:  "These Negroes, they're getting uppity these days.  That's a problem for us, since they got something now they never had before.  The political pull to back up their upityness.  Now, we've got to do something about this.  We've got to give them a little something.  Just enough to quiet them down, but not enough to make a difference.  If we don't move at all, their allies will line up against us.  And there'll be no way to stop them.  It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Johnson, who pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  In fact, Dirksen was instrumental to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968.  Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.

Democrats condemn Republican President Richard Nixon for his so-called "Southern Strategy."  These same Democrats expressed no concern when the racially segregated South voted solidly for Democrats for over 100 years, while deriding Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party.

The "Southern Strategy" that began in the 1970's was an effort by Nixon to get fair-minded people in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were discriminating against blacks.  Georgia did not switch until 2004, and Louisiana was controlled by Democrats until the election of Republican Bobby Jindal, a person of color, as governor in 2007.

http://blackrepublican.blogspot.com/2012/06/republicans-and-democrats-did-not.html

If you want to quote Ann Coulter as a credible source, then that's your business.

But don't expect other people to take you seriously.

[tbombz]

average IQ is basically the same for both groups.


relative personal political ideology is mostly determined by personal experiences.

not by intellect.


conservatives and liberals view the world and government differently. but taking the groups and building  averages, intelligence isnt the casuation of liberal or conservative leanings.

in fact i think the more wise you become the more you come to the middle and start to think about government in a more personal manner. 

that is to say, it is my personal opinion that a wise man chooses to stay silent on the issue of "what is the best way to govern" - as he realizes that he isnt likely to know the answer to that question (if an answer even exists) - and he bases this sentiment on the fundamental truth of the universe that individuals cant be changed - they have to change themself. and that possessing the freedom to do so is of the upmost importance to the development of that change.

[whork]

Apparently, you haven't seen Ann Coulter's book, "Mugged', for example

Liberals have accounted for Democratic losses in the southeast to what has become known as the GOP’s “southern strategy.” Conservative author Ann Coulter debunks the “southern strategy” excuse in her new book “Mugged.”

The single most important piece of evidence for the Republicans’ alleged southern strategy is President Johnson’s statement, after signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, tat “we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.” That self-serving quote is cited by liberals with more solemnity than Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Johnson’s statement is of questionable provenance. The sole source for the quote is LBJ assistant Bill Moyers, whose other work for the president included hunting for gays on Barry Goldwater’s staff and monitoring the FBI’s bugs on Martin Luther King’s hotel room, then distributing the tapes to select members of the Johnson administration and the press. If this were my case-in-chief for an important point, I’d want better sourcing than a sanctimonious liberal fraud.

A source for information about LBJ who is not a partisan hack, dirty trickster and MLK-adultery publicist is Robert M. MacMillan, Air Force One steward during the Johnson administration. Macmillan reports that when LBJ was flying on Air Force One with two governors once, he boasted, “I’ll have them n*****s voting Democratic for two hundred years.”

Coulter goes on to show that LBJ continually rejected civil rights bills proposed by only Republicans and it was not until 1964, when Johnson finally signed the civil rights act with very little help from his fellow Democrats in Congress. Even after the passage of the civil rights act, Democrats continued to win elections in former segregationist states all the way through the election of George H.W. Bush despite the folklore of the GOP “southern strategy.”


 http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/oct/8/picket-coulter-shreds-southern-strategy-myth-gop-s/#ixzz2Cn2WDvsT

I refuse to believe it, because the evidence there shows such isn't the case. The last time we talked about this, I gave at least two specific examples: Robert Byrd and Al Gore, Sr: Two card-carrying members of the Klan who were Dems until the day they died, the former eulogized by Bill Clinton, who tried to explain away Byrd's Klan afiillation as simply being a political necessity.

But, don't take my word for it:

As a result of unrelenting efforts by Democrats to shift their racist past onto the backs of Republicans, using the mantra: "the parties switched sides", a lot of people have requested an article addressing this issue.

It does not make sense to believe that racist Democrats suddenly rushed into the Republican Party, especially after Republicans spent nearly 150 years fighting for black civil rights.  In fact, the racist Democrats declared they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.

From the time of its inception in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, the Republican Party has always been the party of freedom and equality for blacks.  As author Michael Scheuer wrote, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S's:  slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.  Democrats have been running black communities for the past 50+ years, and the socialist policies of the Democrats have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands.

An alarming view of what America will be like in a few years due to unbridled socialism being pushed by President Barack Obama and his Democratic Party cohorts, is contained in the article:  "Detroit: The Moral of the Story" by Kevin D. Williamson that is posted on the Internet.

Democrats first used brutality and discriminatory laws to stop blacks from voting for Republicans.  Democrats now use deception and government handouts to keep blacks from voting for Republicans.   In his book, "Dreams From My Father," Obama described what he and other Democrats do to poor blacks as "plantation politics."

The racist Democrats of the 1950's and 1960's that Republicans were fighting died Democrats.  One racist Democrat who survived until 2010 was US Senator Robert Byrd, a former recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan.  Notably, the Ku Klux Klan was started by Democrats in 1866 and became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party for the purpose of terrorizing and lynching Republicans—black and white.   Byrd became a prominent leader in the Democrat-controlled Congress where he was honored by his fellow Democrats as the "conscience of the Senate."

Byrd was a fierce opponent of desegregating the military and complained in one letter:  "I would rather die a thousand times and see old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds."

Democrats denounced US Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about US Senator Strom Thurmond.  However, there was silence when Democrat US Senator Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment."  Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and, after he became a Republican, Thurmond defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats.

While turning a blind eye to how the Democratic Party embraced Byrd until his death, Democrats regularly lambaste the Republican Party about David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

Ignored are the facts that the Republican Party never embraced Duke and when he ran for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1992, Republican Party officials tried to block his participation.  Hypocritical is the word for how Democrats also ignore Duke's long participation in the Democratic Party with no efforts by Democrats to block him.  Below is Duke's political history in Louisiana, which has an open primary system.

Duke ran for Louisiana State Senator as a Democrat in 1975.  He ran again for the Louisiana State Senate in 1979 as a Democrat.  In 1988, he made a bid for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.  Then, on election day in 1988, he had himself  listed on the presidential ballot as an "Independent Populist."  After his unbroken string of losses as a Democrat and an Independent Populist, Duke decided to describe himself as a Republican, then ran the following races where he lost every time: in 1989 he ran for Louisiana State Representative; in 1990, he ran for US Senator; in 1991 he ran for Governor of Louisiana; in 1992 he ran for president; in 1996 he ran for US Senator; and in 1999 he ran for US Representative.

Contrary to popular belief, President Lyndon Johnson did not predict a racist exodus to the Republican Party from the Democratic Party because of Johnson's support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Omitted from the Democrats' rewritten history is what Johnson actually meant by his prediction.

Johnson feared that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short-lived States Rights Democratic Party. In fact, Alabama's Democrat Governor George C. Wallace in 1968 started the American Independent Party that attracted other racist candidates, including Democrat Governor Lester Maddox.

Behind closed doors, Johnson said:  "These Negroes, they're getting uppity these days.  That's a problem for us, since they got something now they never had before.  The political pull to back up their upityness.  Now, we've got to do something about this.  We've got to give them a little something.  Just enough to quiet them down, but not enough to make a difference.  If we don't move at all, their allies will line up against us.  And there'll be no way to stop them.  It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Johnson, who pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  In fact, Dirksen was instrumental to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968.  Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.

Democrats condemn Republican President Richard Nixon for his so-called "Southern Strategy."  These same Democrats expressed no concern when the racially segregated South voted solidly for Democrats for over 100 years, while deriding Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party.

The "Southern Strategy" that began in the 1970's was an effort by Nixon to get fair-minded people in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were discriminating against blacks.  Georgia did not switch until 2004, and Louisiana was controlled by Democrats until the election of Republican Bobby Jindal, a person of color, as governor in 2007.

http://blackrepublican.blogspot.com/2012/06/republicans-and-democrats-did-not.html

Do you see Ann Coulter as a credible source Mcway?

You now she is full of shit right?