Posted on 05/21/2019 3:25:46 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
You may have noticed that conservatives are blessed with an impressive lineup of intellectual heavyweights. Liberals have none, literally none. A few of those on the conservative side are Thomas Sowell, Victor Davis Hanson, Dennis Prager, Shelby Steele, Jordon Peterson, and Mark Levin.
*snip*
You cannot name a single liberal who has anything approaching the above credentials or intellectual output. Why? There are a number of reasons.
Liberalism is fundamentally about feelings rather than thoughts. Also the left focuses on intentions, the right focuses on results and the ways by which results are achieved.
An advantage of making intentions your goal is that once you choose and announce them, you’re done. No need to follow up to see if your intentions were realized. No need to consider second or third order effects.
Leftism is about force, conservatism is about freedom and voluntary exchange. The use of force needs no theory or ideology. Anyone willing to rely on force to accomplish his or her objectives doesn’t really need to understand how the world works.
The mindset of the writers listed above reflects what is written in Ecclesiastes, “And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven… and I gave my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly.”
The foremost source of the left’s intellectual poverty is arrogance. Arrogance kills curiosity. Those on the left feel they already know all they need to know. They have nothing left to learn or to bother thinking deeply about. Ironically, they feel intellectually superior to conservatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
What about Peter Buttgiger? He’s a fart smeller.
Paul Krugman has a Nobel Prize in economics, so I guess he’s wicked super smart.
“Paul Krugman has a Nobel Prize in economics, so I guess he’s wicked super smart.”
Krugman is wicked smaht. He just lacks any common sense, like most liberals. Plus, he is a left wing ideologue which means he tries to apply his wicked smahts to his ideology. Fortunately that makes him an idiot.
Or more correctly, an useful idiot.
He tries to mathematically buttress his economic arguments and make them bulletproof. He contends that if you understand the statistics, you cannot disagree with him. Apparently he bumped into Krugman, and Krugman disagreed with him. Taleb essentially said, "But look at the math! Look at this! Look at that! How can you disagree with this?" And apparently Krugman shrugged and said something like, "I don't actually understand the math. I just feel that you're wrong."
I don't know how true the story is, but I suspect Krugman is not good with statistics. And Taleb certainly is.
Tell me about the intellect of the black dyke mayor of Chicago.
Yup.
Regards,
David Horowitz should have been named first or second, for crying out loud, and Daniel Greenfield should certainly be part of the pantheon. Also Walter Williams, Dinesh d'Souza, Diana West, Heather MacDonald, Theodore Dalrymple, Kay Hymowitz and Sharyl Atkisson.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.