Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
D) Darrell Waltrip
A)Underwater
A)At the equator
B)Hurricane
D)Derecho
C)Mt. Pelee
B)Mid-western U.S.
C) 1985
B)Supercooled water droplet
I'll give it a shot.
B)Freezing Rain
Great restart by Busch.
A)Dinosaur
Yee Haw! I'm ready for racin'
start those engines....I'm on a roll.
24, 29, 48
9, 24, 29, 48
D)cryosphere
C)cloud moisture
C)in your car
Because some
dolts are more worried about up-coming elections than helping the country of which they serve.
Where have you been!
Because some
dolts are more worried about up-coming elections than helping the country of which they serve.
Can't handle the
facts? You fit perfectly!
Karl Rove, the White House adviser whom George W. Bush called his political "architect," admits in a new memoir that the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq severely damaged the Bush presidency -- and he suggests the war might not have occurred had Bush actually known the truth.
Of his own role, Rove writes that his biggest mistake was not pushing back against claims that the president had led the country into the Iraq war under false pretenses.
If Bush had known about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, Rove questions whether the United States would have gone to war, according to an excerpt quoted by the New York Times. "Would the Iraq War have occurred without W.M.D., I doubt it," Rove writes. "Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force resolution without the W.M.D. threat. The Bush administration itself would probably have sought other ways to constrain Saddam, bring about regime change and deal with Iraq's horrendous human rights violations."
Karl Rove, the White House adviser whom George W. Bush called his political "architect," admits in a new memoir that the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq severely damaged the Bush presidency -- and he suggests the war might not have occurred had Bush actually known the truth.
Of his own role, Rove writes that his biggest mistake was not pushing back against claims that the president had led the country into the Iraq war under false pretenses.
If Bush had known about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, Rove questions whether the United States would have gone to war, according to an excerpt quoted by the New York Times. "Would the Iraq War have occurred without W.M.D., I doubt it," Rove writes. "Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force resolution without the W.M.D. threat. The Bush administration itself would probably have sought other ways to constrain Saddam, bring about regime change and deal with Iraq's horrendous human rights violations."
Hi Steph,
Interesting studies, all of them. Wingers can't refute facts but will obviously make fun of the studies in hope of deflecting the truth.
Study:
Liberals, Atheists Have Higher IQs, smarter than conservatives
Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.
Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.
Taboo as it may be to suggest one group of ideologues is smarter — on average, but not without exception — than another, the cold, hard evidence supporting this is significant. Just to clear up any doubt as to what “liberal” and “conservative” refer to, CNN adds:
The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines “liberal” in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.
I usually don’t buy into this stuff, but there seems to be a good reason why smart people today are less likely to identify themselves as conservative. Conservatism at its core (Goldwater/Bill Buckley-type conservatism) is a perfectly legitimate and intellectually sound ideology, but modern conservatism (today defined by the likes of Reagan/Bush/Palin) has evolved into a predominantly anti-intellectual movement.
And to the extent that the liberal/conservative paradigm extends to the Democratic/Republican paradigm, this theory holds.
For starters, just look at the 2004 election. Even though John Kerry lost it, he won all 16 of the top 16 highest-IQ states. Bush, by comparison, won all 25 of the bottom 25. What is one to discern from that?
2008 exit polls show Obama resoundingly won Americans with college degrees, and crushed McCain among those with post-graduate degrees. He won economists, scientists, doctors, lawyers, professors… the list goes on. (OK, 2008 was an unusually Democratic year, but still.)
It’s no surprise that Sarah Palin’s ‘08 platform was mostly based on railing against intellectualism, and casting those people in coastal states who like to read as “elitists” and implying they weren’t “real Americans.”
Pew found this past summer that only 6 percent of scientists identify themselves as Republicans. Six percent. And only 9 percent identify themselves as “conservative.” Imagine that.
In colleges and universities across America, students overwhelmingly identify themselves as liberal over conservative. Why might that be?
The obvious caveat here is that there are many highly intelligent conservatives who just can’t identify with today’s Republican Party, which has been systematically alienating them and growing into an anti-intellectual movement. That’s what it comes down to. The Tea Party, which is in more ways than not a Republican Party appendage, is the perfect embodiment of this phenomenon.
As for religion, this is a more complex (and taboo) topic but on the most basic level it’s not beyond the pale that atheists have higher IQs.
Contrary to the amoral or nihilistic beings they’re often portrayed as, atheists are usually just self-conscious free thinkers who tend not to embrace what’s unprovable; lest they be be told what to believe. Religious people are, by definition, more willing to accept nebulous or intangible ideas about life and its meaning if it gives them comfort. What does that have to do with intelligence? Draw your own conclusions.
Study:
Liberals, Atheists Have Higher IQs, smarter than conservatives
Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.
Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.
Taboo as it may be to suggest one group of ideologues is smarter — on average, but not without exception — than another, the cold, hard evidence supporting this is significant. Just to clear up any doubt as to what “liberal” and “conservative” refer to, CNN adds:
The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines “liberal” in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.
I usually don’t buy into this stuff, but there seems to be a good reason why smart people today are less likely to identify themselves as conservative. Conservatism at its core (Goldwater/Bill Buckley-type conservatism) is a perfectly legitimate and intellectually sound ideology, but modern conservatism (today defined by the likes of Reagan/Bush/Palin) has evolved into a predominantly anti-intellectual movement.
And to the extent that the liberal/conservative paradigm extends to the Democratic/Republican paradigm, this theory holds.
For starters, just look at the 2004 election. Even though John Kerry lost it, he won all 16 of the top 16 highest-IQ states. Bush, by comparison, won all 25 of the bottom 25. What is one to discern from that?
2008 exit polls show Obama resoundingly won Americans with college degrees, and crushed McCain among those with post-graduate degrees. He won economists, scientists, doctors, lawyers, professors… the list goes on. (OK, 2008 was an unusually Democratic year, but still.)
It’s no surprise that Sarah Palin’s ‘08 platform was mostly based on railing against intellectualism, and casting those people in coastal states who like to read as “elitists” and implying they weren’t “real Americans.”
Pew found this past summer that only 6 percent of scientists identify themselves as Republicans. Six percent. And only 9 percent identify themselves as “conservative.” Imagine that.
In colleges and universities across America, students overwhelmingly identify themselves as liberal over conservative. Why might that be?
The obvious caveat here is that there are many highly intelligent conservatives who just can’t identify with today’s Republican Party, which has been systematically alienating them and growing into an anti-intellectual movement. That’s what it comes down to. The Tea Party, which is in more ways than not a Republican Party appendage, is the perfect embodiment of this phenomenon.
As for religion, this is a more complex (and taboo) topic but on the most basic level it’s not beyond the pale that atheists have higher IQs.
Contrary to the amoral or nihilistic beings they’re often portrayed as, atheists are usually just self-conscious free thinkers who tend not to embrace what’s unprovable; lest they be be told what to believe. Religious people are, by definition, more willing to accept nebulous or intangible ideas about life and its meaning if it gives them comfort. What does that have to do with intelligence? Draw your own conclusions.
Study:
Liberals, Atheists Have Higher IQs, smarter than conservatives
Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.
Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.
Taboo as it may be to suggest one group of ideologues is smarter — on average, but not without exception — than another, the cold, hard evidence supporting this is significant. Just to clear up any doubt as to what “liberal” and “conservative” refer to, CNN adds:
The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines “liberal” in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.
I usually don’t buy into this stuff, but there seems to be a good reason why smart people today are less likely to identify themselves as conservative. Conservatism at its core (Goldwater/Bill Buckley-type conservatism) is a perfectly legitimate and intellectually sound ideology, but modern conservatism (today defined by the likes of Reagan/Bush/Palin) has evolved into a predominantly anti-intellectual movement.
And to the extent that the liberal/conservative paradigm extends to the Democratic/Republican paradigm, this theory holds.
For starters, just look at the 2004 election. Even though John Kerry lost it, he won all 16 of the top 16 highest-IQ states. Bush, by comparison, won all 25 of the bottom 25. What is one to discern from that?
2008 exit polls show Obama resoundingly won Americans with college degrees, and crushed McCain among those with post-graduate degrees. He won economists, scientists, doctors, lawyers, professors… the list goes on. (OK, 2008 was an unusually Democratic year, but still.)
It’s no surprise that Sarah Palin’s ‘08 platform was mostly based on railing against intellectualism, and casting those people in coastal states who like to read as “elitists” and implying they weren’t “real Americans.”
Pew found this past summer that only 6 percent of scientists identify themselves as Republicans. Six percent. And only 9 percent identify themselves as “conservative.” Imagine that.
In colleges and universities across America, students overwhelmingly identify themselves as liberal over conservative. Why might that be?
The obvious caveat here is that there are many highly intelligent conservatives who just can’t identify with today’s Republican Party, which has been systematically alienating them and growing into an anti-intellectual movement. That’s what it comes down to. The Tea Party, which is in more ways than not a Republican Party appendage, is the perfect embodiment of this phenomenon.
As for religion, this is a more complex (and taboo) topic but on the most basic level it’s not beyond the pale that atheists have higher IQs.
Contrary to the amoral or nihilistic beings they’re often portrayed as, atheists are usually just self-conscious free thinkers who tend not to embrace what’s unprovable; lest they be be told what to believe. Religious people are, by definition, more willing to accept nebulous or intangible ideas about life and its meaning if it gives them comfort. What does that have to do with intelligence? Draw your own conclusions.
A)Florida
A)Galveston, TX
Congrats! On the
smoke free...not the 40th place.
C)storm-surge
Burton was told that
his pit crew may have found Jimmy's golden horseshoe. After further inspection.....it was still up Jimmy's arse.
The #31 was furious that he was called into the pits while his crew searched. He lost some 15 spots by coming in.
He could have finished top 5. I bet he doesn't fall for that again.
B)desert areas
I don't even want to
think about that. Thank God we were victorious.
This program should be required viewing for every high school student in this country.
I don't think that the younger generations have a true clue how fortunate they are.
Spent a few hours watching
(WWII in HD) on History channel yesterday....great watch.
Unseen, unedited film that seeds chills down your spine.
I don't think that I've ever felt so proud to be an American than I did after viewing this. We've had some extraordinary men and women serving us.
To those of you that have served...bless you all.
I'm in total awe.
A man breaks into
>> a house to look for money and guns. Inside, he
>> finds couple in bed.
>> He orders the guy
>> out of the bed and ties him to a chair. While tying the homeowner’s
>> wife to the bed the
>> convict gets on top of her, kisses her
>> neck, then gets up & goes
>> into
>> the bathroom.
>>
>> While he’s in there, the husband whispers over
>> to his wife: 'Listen, this guy is
>> an
>> escaped convict. Look at his
>> clothes! He's probably spent a lot of time in
>> jail and
>> hasn't seen a woman in
>> years. I saw how he kissed your neck.
>>
>>
>> If he wants
>> sex, don't resist, don't complain...
>> do whatever he tells you.
>> Satisfy him no matter how
>> much he nauseates you. This guy
>> is obviously very
>> dangerous.
>> If he gets angry, he'll
>> kill us both. Be strong, honey. I love you!'
>>
>>
>> His wife responds: 'He
>> wasn't kissing my neck. He was
>> whispering in my ear.
>> He told me that he's
>> gay, he thinks you're cute, and asked if we
>> had any Vaseline.
>> I told him it was in
>> the bathroom. "Be strong, Honey. I
>> love you, too!"
D)a mobile home
picks 14, 16, 48
14, 16, 48, 88