Bazdavies79 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 One friend, and other associates, general people I've met kind of thing. It's not scientific. Incidentally, has there ever been a funny right wing comedian? I can think of two comedians Jim Davidson and Roy Chubby Brown, they're about as funny to me as a burning orphanage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 the right wing and prejudice are seemingly interlinked Diane Abbot Labour supporters abandoning the party for the BNP yep those pesky right wingers but what makes it even more amusing is if you read up on the story in more detail you find that Liam has scored again A study by Bryan Caplan, an economist at George Mason University in Virginia, found that smart people tend to think like economists, being in favour of free trade, globalisation and free markets and against protectionism and state intervention in industry. This matches other findings that show that IQ correlates not with left-wing thinking as such, but with classic Enlightenment liberalism. So a smart person (all else being equal) will probably be in favour of capitalism generally, and free-trade in particular. He or she will distrust state intervention in the markets, probably be suspicious of welfarism and deeply dislike protectionism, union closed-shops and tariffs. The smart person will believe that the have-nots should be encouraged to become haves by dint of their own labours and by the levelling of economic playing fields, NOT by taking money off the haves and giving it to them. In other words, Thatcherism. Hardly something we equate with the left back of the net Tony - you seem unable to understand what the article is about here. What exactly is your argument. You mention Abbott as some sort of justification, when the study clearly shows that Right wing thinking has a higher likelihood for prejudice. To use Abbott as some sort of justification for dismissing this is somewhat silly, IMO. Likewise your often used defence of trying to link the BNP and Labour is also head scratching. Are you saying that the two parties are the same? Are you saying that the BNP is only made up of Left wing thinking people? Again you are not thinking through your defence at all. As for your quote it makes no sense whatsoever in terms of what is being discussed. Out of curiosity where is that from? Maybe then we can see what you are trying to prove because at the moment your only counter argument against a study by Canadians based on UK data, is to quote some article talking about the University of Virginia. How exactly that is supposed to signify a own goal is worthy of a explanation surely? The study is a fair one if you believe like many do that Right wing thinking has a lot of principles based on prejudice and lack of tolerance. You may not like that, but the comments made by these people are surely worthy of consideration, and not just quoting some obscure random comment from an American University Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Incidentally, has there ever been a funny right wing comedian? I can think of two comedians Jim Davidson and Roy Chubby Brown, they're about as funny to me as a burning orphanage. can't argue with that one but I could raise you Ben Elton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Is Elton really a lefty? He is crap either way and I wouldn't argue that there are crap comedians out there of all political persuasions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 One friend, and other associates, general people I've met kind of thing. It's not scientific. Incidentally, has there ever been a funny right wing comedian? I can think of two comedians Jim Davidson and Roy Chubby Brown, they're about as funny to me as a burning orphanage. It's the old thing again about Right Wing views typically are associated with that lack of tolerance and general prejudice. Look at that "funny" person Clarkson. His brand of "humour" is based on borderline racism, Xenaphobia and intolerance. His politics are Right Wing. While the two don't have to go hand in hand there is definitely a larger number of people who find that type of "humour" funny, and a lot of them are not exactly the most tolerant etc. The Tory party in the UK have for many many years been known as the "nasty" party. We saw recently the intolerance borne out of either stupidity, ignorance or mere nastiness from Boris with his lies and comments about the Irish in London. link. Yes I accept that you cannot pigeon hole all right wing thinking people as less intelligent and prejudiced, but as that study showed there is certainly consideration that goes some way into showing how ideas and thoughts arise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 His brand of "humour" is based on borderline racism, Xenaphobia and intolerance. His politics are Right Wing. While the two don't have to go hand in hand there is definitely a larger number of people who find that type of "humour" funny, and a lot of them are not exactly the most tolerantetc. way to insult about nine tenths of Villatalk :-) talking about Boris and the nasty party .. how about this one for an election campaign line "“Those who don't vote for me will be weighed in the balance come Judgment Day. The Archangel Gabriel will say, ‘You didn't vote for Ken Livingstone in 2012. Oh dear, burn forever. Your skin flayed for all eternity" good old Ken , still at least he didn't call any Jews Nazi's this time around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Montgomerie at Conservative Home: The unnecessary and unpopular NHS Bill could cost the Conservative Party the next election. Cameron must kill it. The NHS was long the Conservative Party’s Achilles heel. David Cameron’s greatest political achievement as Leader of the Opposition was to neutralise health as an issue. The greatest mistake of his time as Prime Minister has been to put it back at the centre of political debate. Many Conservatives think that the NHS needs fundamental reform but for far-reaching reform to succeed certain pre-conditions must be met. The public needs to have been persuaded that substantial change is necessary. The Government cannot be distracted by other consuming projects but its best brains must be focused and single-minded in ensuring the policy’s success. The Whitehall machine needs to be prepared and co-operative. The Health Secretary needs to enjoy significant goodwill amongst NHS staff and possess exceptional communication skills. Few - perhaps none - of those preconditions exist. Earlier this week David Cameron and Nick Clegg decided again that they would plough on with the Health and Social Care Bill. Clegg was particularly reluctant. Cameron was resigned to doing so. Neither were enthusiastic. In the wake of Rachel Sylvester’s seismic article in Tuesday’s Times (£) it is now clear that concern is high at the top table of the Coalition. Rachel Sylvester revealed the extent of concern inside Downing Street. Speaking to ConservativeHome, three Tory Cabinet ministers have now also rung the alarm bell. One was insistent the Bill must be dropped. Another said Andrew Lansley must be replaced. Another likened the NHS reforms to the poll tax. The consensus is that the Prime Minister needs an external shock to wake him to the scale of the problem. The few people who remain in the stay-the-course camp point to the latest YouGov polling (PDF). They say that the NHS isn’t at the top of voters’ concerns. Only 25% of voters think it’s one of the top three issues facing the country. But the state of public opinion today isn’t the issue. The issue is public opinion next winter and in the winter of 2013/14 and beyond. The NHS has always gobbled up resources and creaked. The creaking was severe when spending was increasing by 3% or 4% in real terms every year. What do you think it’s going to be like when spending is increasing by 0.1% year-after-year-after-year in this longest ever period of UK-wide austerity? The creaking could have been blamed on the empty Treasury and Labour’s over-borrowing. Not now. It will now be unfairly blamed on the Bill and a Bill that is not only mangled and bureaucratic, but also unnecessary. Most observers think that meeting “The Nicholson challenge” - £20 billion of essential efficiency savings – was always going to be nightmarishly difficult but that it didn’t require new legislation. Nearly all of the necessary efficiencies could have been delivered with existing powers. That has certainly been the consistent argument of Stephen Dorrell MP, the influential Chairman of the Commons Health Select Committee. The NHS Bill emerged during the early days of the Coalition. Cameron and Clegg seemed to think the normal laws of politics had been suspended in the weeks following their rose garden romance. Desperate to prove that their alliance was not a lowest common denominator arrangement they over-reached and the Lansley Bill was the biggest product of this heady period. George Osborne might have been expected to veto such an over-reach. Mr Osborne is the party’s master strategist and co-architect of the opposition years strategy to take the NHS 'off-the-table'. Unfortunately and inevitably he was focused on the small matter of being the new Chancellor of the Exchequer during the period in which the NHS Bill was drawn up and signed off. LansleyNHyesSoon, in a wider resuffle, Andrew Lansley will have to move on. He will have to move on because he hasn’t been able to communicate these reforms in a streetwise way and he has been unnecessarily confrontational with NHS staff. It would be very wrong, however, for him to take the full blame. Cameron and Clegg both put their signatures on the reforms. Oliver Letwin went through the draft legislation with a fine toothcomb, supposedly ‘bomb-proofing’ them. And, then, after last year’s pause the whole Cabinet consented to the compromises with the Lib Dem rebels and NHS professionals. Lansley is a man of integrity and intellectual seriousness. Unfortunately, however, the NHS has become a big negative for our party again and it’s easier to move forward with a new frontman or a new frontwoman. Cameron now has a very difficult choice between two very tricky paths. Path one involves removing all contentious components of the Bill. That might mean sitting down with Baroness (Shirley) Williams and other leading rebels. Perhaps, even with Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham. It means passing a Bill which contains the genuinely new and exciting provisions on public health but much else would have to be deleted and discarded. It would be humiliating to forge such a cross-party deal but the humiliation would subside over a few weeks. Path two involves pressing on. It’s the path that, despite his rhetoric, Ed Miliband prays the Coalition will tread. Pressing on avoids the immediate political pain but leaves the chronic electoral problem in place. By ‘succeeding’ in enacting a contentious Bill every inevitable problem that arises in the NHS in the years ahead will be blamed on it. That’s a heavy price to pay for a Bill that is neither transformational nor necessary. Cameron must take path one or the already uphill struggle at the next election becomes mountainous. ConservativeHome supports the Government’s radicalism on schools, welfare and the deficit. We’d like to see much more ambition on competitiveness and changing Britain’s relationship with Europe. The NHS Bill is not just a distraction from all of this but potentially fatal to the Conservative Party's electoral prospects. It must be stopped before it's too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 very interesting article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Yes I accept that you cannot pigeon hole all right wing thinking people as less intelligent and prejudiced, but as that study showed there is certainly consideration that goes some way into showing how ideas and thoughts arise Or as J.S. Mill put it some time back, I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Stupid people come from all persuasions, to try and categorize it any other way is well stupid. I don’t think we need any research to prove this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 "My team's smarter than your team" Eugh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted February 10, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted February 10, 2012 Got shouted at by an American evangelist on the street (in Bradford) today: "If you do not believe in Jesus, and LIVE for Jesus, you are just AN EDUCATED FOOL!!!" I smiled and replied: "Better than being an UNeducated fool, anyway". She looked apoplectic, but I was halfway into the bookshop by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 it's interesting though as I thought all lefty's wore sandals , had beards and enjoyed morris dancing whilst being able to recite the knights that go ni , Ad infinitum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 One friend, and other associates, general people I've met kind of thing. It's not scientific. Incidentally, has there ever been a funny right wing comedian? I can think of two comedians Jim Davidson and Roy Chubby Brown, they're about as funny to me as a burning orphanage. It's the old thing again about Right Wing views typically are associated with that lack of tolerance and general prejudice. Look at that "funny" person Clarkson. His brand of "humour" is based on borderline racism, Xenaphobia and intolerance. His politics are Right Wing. While the two don't have to go hand in hand there is definitely a larger number of people who find that type of "humour" funny, and a lot of them are not exactly the most tolerant etc. The Tory party in the UK have for many many years been known as the "nasty" party. We saw recently the intolerance borne out of either stupidity, ignorance or mere nastiness from Boris with his lies and comments about the Irish in London. link. Yes I accept that you cannot pigeon hole all right wing thinking people as less intelligent and prejudiced, but as that study showed there is certainly consideration that goes some way into showing how ideas and thoughts arise Top post Ian. Can't disagree with any of that really. I'm still struggling to think of a decent 'right wing' comedian ... although I guess that is open to peoples opinions of what a 'decent comedian' is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Yes I accept that you cannot pigeon hole all right wing thinking people as less intelligent and prejudiced, but as that study showed there is certainly consideration that goes some way into showing how ideas and thoughts arise Or as J.S. Mill put it some time back, I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. That J S Mill was a man of great insight! (assuming it is a man of course :winkold: ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 He was a liberal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I'm still struggling to think of a decent 'right wing' comedian ... Not a comedian but a humourist/satirist - PJ O'Rourke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted February 10, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted February 10, 2012 Alexander Armstrong is right wing. ...whether you consider him a decent comedian or not is a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 He was a liberal... Not the infamous John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Alexander Armstrong is right wing. ...whether you consider him a decent comedian or not is a different story. I guess he's quite inoffensive and gentle, a bit like Macintyre, who I'd guess is possibly also a tad daily mail/right wing. Neither really satisy the 'decent' criterion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts