WHY DO NEOCONS THINK THEY ARE SMARTER THAN NASA SClENTISTS?
536291
Many of them really do think that everything bad in the world is the Democrats fauilt... If bush killed a lady they would say Clinton brainwashed him... \n\nThey believe that they are right, no matter what and no matter what evidence there is to the contrary... and they have a support system of Fox news and conservative talk radio that backs them up... it's like a little sub-culture they have where they propagate their propaganda... \n\nit's really odd when you think about it... some one should do a PBS special on them... follow them around... view their mating habits...
723433
Because they are thoughtless and careless.  They could, if they wanted, attack liberals on the issues, in a coherent and cordial way.  But it is always so much easier to dismiss one's political opponents as inherently stupid.  The tragedy for conservatives is that it is an undeniable fact that the vast majority of scientists are indeed liberals.  They can dismiss the social sciences as garbage (they are not, but conservatives are very dismissive, anyway), and they can dismiss the humanities as useless, but they cannot dismiss science.  They can say stupid things like "those who can't do, teach", but it is laughable to imply that scientists working in Academia are not "doing".  Virtually *all* Nobel prize winners are academics.  The overwhelming majority of progress in basic science research comes from the hallways of Academia, indeed, and not the industrial sector, and even in the industrial sector, scientists are still liberals.  It is just embarrassing to them that science is in the hands of liberals, and there's nothing they can do about it, except invent silly phrases like "junk science", uttered by incompetent hacks to dismiss the expertise of the entire relevant community at specific points in time.  They should be ashamed of themselves, frankly.\n\n------------------------\n\nFreetyme: You have to be quite smart to win a Nobel prize, to attain fame as a researcher in the basic sciences, to publish in scientific journals, etc.  Basic scientific research happens in universities, freetyme, not in industry.  And besides, American universities are the best in the world.  A PhD in mathematics or physics from Harvard, MIT, Berkeley, Princeton, Yale, Chicago, is significantly more respected than one from just about any European or Japanese university--Paris excepted.\n\nProgress in the sciences occurs thanks to the people you are dismissing as intellectually inferior.  You mustn't be very smart.  Oh, and who do you think writes the textbooks that all those academics read before 'mindlessly repeating them during class.'
355128
Because they are jealous! Right-wingers (or repubs) are generally far less educated and less intellegent than the average liberal (left wingers). Repubs are very narrow sighted and look at things in black and white vision. Therefore they insult everything and everyone smarter and more sophisticated than themselves to make themselves feel more important than the stupid uneducated narrow minded folk that they are. Just like a bully in the third grade who is too dumb to know any better.
1050437
I think both groups act pretty childishly. I've seen some people complaining about the "Neo-Cons", and others complain about "Liberals".\n\nIt's people not taking the trouble to look past labels. It's much easier to call names than to actually educate yourself on what's really going on. I think there's a lot of intolerance on both sides.
128733
Bush supporters see it this way, 1 they are either as dumb as he is or 2 they would rather have us nuked off the earth before ever admitting they were wrong ( stay the course ) doesn't matter that the decision made was wrong , what matters to them is don't ever admit that they were wrong.
867818
The Republicans are more intelligent and make better arguments.\n\nThe Democrats are pedantic crybabies who just call names.
1044680
This posting isn't too awful.  \nThe idea that liberals dance when they see the casualties of war is another spin column used by the neocons.\nIt is unclear how the conservatives are able to pander to the lower and middle class.\nIs it hip to be ignorant?  I'm afraid ignorance is in at the moment.  This helps to make those with average to low intelligence feel some sense of pride.  \n\nThose who lied and sent our troops into harms way on a known false premise will burn in hell.
759687
Considered as a group, the neocons have a fairly concrete identity -- they are intensely hawkish Democrats (or the offspring of intensely hawkish Democrats) who bolted the party in the late '60s/early '70s after it turned against the Vietnam War. They tend to be Jewish, urban and intellectual. Many of them worked for Scoop Jackson (the hawkish Democratic Senator from Washington State.) Some of them started out on the far left fringe of American politics (Trotskyists, etc.) then moved right and kept going. Some are admirers of the late University of Chicago professor and philospher Leo Strauss.\n\nThese are all generalizations, but there are enough people who fit enough of the points to make the profile valid. \n\nIdeologically, though, neocon is a much more nebulous term. It's not like there's some kind of neocon Politburo that lays down a rigid party line on any and all points -- although the Project for a New American Century probably comes closest to filling that function. \n\nIt's easy enough to point to some common themes that are generally identified with the neocons: contempt for international organizations and the concept of multilateralism; impatience with traditional balance-of-power diplomacy; a cultish devotion to the use of military power; an outspoken belief in the superiority of Western culture and political institutions; a messianic vision of America's mission to "civilize" the world, which at times (Max Boot) makes them sound like caricatures of old-fashioned European imperialists. And of course: an intense identification with the state of Israel, and a willingness, even eagerness, to use American power to protect and further Israeli security interests.\n\nBut there are nuances on all these points. Some neocons support the maximum Likud position -- one state (Jewish) between the Jordan and the sea. Some don't. Some are more willing to use multilateral institutions to pursue American interests. Some aren't. Some are more cynical about the "spreading democracy" meme than others.\n\nPersonally, I would not describe Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld as neocons. Certainly not on the first count (personal biography). And not on the second (ideological affinity), either. At the end of the day, Cheney and Rumsfeld are politicians and bureaucrats. They are not intellectuals -- not by a long shot. They are consumers of ideology, not producers.\n\nTo me, the neocons and the realists are rival schools of foreign policy intellectuals, competing for the patronage of political leaders such as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Delay, etc. With a few exceptions, they are servants of power -- not holders of power.\n\nSince most American politicians (like most American voters) know very little about the rest of the world, they usually don't have detailed positions on the kinds of foreign policy issues the neocons and the realists spend their professional lives debating. Instead, politicians have belief systems, typically reflecting some fairly basic value judgments: America must always be the strongest nation on earth, or America should try to cooperate with its allies, or whatever
1024799
Well, more Democrats than republicans go to college....fact.  Therefore, more Democrats can think critically than republicans...fact.  Therefore, it makes sense that Dem states do better on IQ tests because it tests critical thinking skills.  funny.  I'm a socialist and I scored a 155.
550714
based on my own sampling I have noticed that people giving articulate, intelligent answers to questions asked gravitate towards the left in their views and the ones leaving simple sloganistic responses that in no way come close to answering questions seem to have a \n"rightie" bias.  \n\nAn unscientific sampling to be sure.
1161498
In all fairness, I have to say that there are both intelligent and not-so-intelligent people on both sides. However, the Christian fundamentalists have hijacked the Republican Party, and fundamentalists tend to be less educated than non-fundamentalists and are often intolerant of ambiguity. This is probably the main reason why Republicans often seem less than intelligent. And unfortunately, Bush exemplifies this.
499234
NEOCONS DON'T BELIEVE IN IT, BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO TEMPTED TO PILLAGE AND PLUNDER THE EARTH'S RESOURCES FOR A SHORT TERM PROFIT AND DON'T GIVE A RAT'S BEHIND WHAT SHAPE THEY LEAVE THE EARTH IN FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
951226
No! Dan Quayle is an idiot and is twice as smart as Bush.
1038123
The funny thing about the whole obnoxious Neocon manure spreader is that all of them are in the BORG collective and they think the same. I think the Neocon machine has chip implants in their heads someplace. You know especially when they all chant about how much they love to be spied on, and Gasoline isn't George Bush's fault...... Flying over New Orleans for a week in the air-force one jet, and never noticing a problem. Wanting to sell the ports to Arab OPEC, Holding hands in the flower garden with the Arab prince, wearing Jeff Gannon's favorite flight suit, and saying "I'm the Decider, and Mission Accomplished"........ (M)ann Coulter is another of my favorites with Rush the Lush Limbaugh, Kenny Ley is going to set up the next Presidential candidate from prison...........Bush belongs in Gitmo with his Arab friends till he is done............
390792
I think it is because they are insecure.  They are such morons that by talking so freakin' much they think other people will think they are smart, when it is actually just making them look like even more of an idiot.
653962
I suspect that there are a lot of neocon zombie types out there that just follow the leader...like lemmings over the cliff.\nThey don't question anything that the President does or says.\nFor those that do have a working brain and actually use their civil rights to question the administration, these neocons only offer quick-draw comments such as "knee-jerk liberal", etc.\nWell, I'm here to tell you that as a life-long Republican, I did NOT vote for "W" (does the "W" stand for "wrong"?) in 2004...I did in 2K, but I learned from my mistake.\nAt least with the stickers on their cars, we can spot the lemmings.
1174862
They're mimicking the "fallacious logic" rhetoric technique conservative pundits use during their TV, book, and radio rants.  It's like a kid using the "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?" response to everything you say.  They simply can't answer a question with an ANSWER.  They answer questions by attacking the asker without actually answering the question.\n\nIt's also pretty useless to site sources, because everything that is written about a topic "1st Tier", such as a study, scientifically-conducted opinion poll, or peer-reviewed research paper, generally is instantly written off as "liberal bias".\n\nAnother mistake that is made by liberals and progressives is that they assume everyone already knows the facts when they give their opinions.  Most neo-cons DON'T and assume you are pulling your opinions out of your butt like they do or you are mimicking a pundit like they are.  They can't percieve that anyone could actually look at facts and interpret them in their own way...if they aren't smart enough to do this, how could you be?