With the actual study here by the way...

http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publications/McDaniel%20%282006%29%20Estimating%20state%20IQ.pdf

Concerning liberal thinking on economics:

Liberals want to help other people economically because of empathy, they see conditions that other people are in and want to improve them.  If your mother was sick and you gave her money to help her pay her hospital bills, that doesn't mean that you think you are better than your mother, it just means that you want to help.  The difference is liberals want to help everybody, and you can argue wether or not this is the 'best' option, but the motivation is good.  Also, its not entirely thinking of other people, liberals see a person who can't afford an education and want to pay taxes so that the government to give him money so he can get one, but they also want the government to pay for their education as well.  Liberals want everyone to help each other, and to be honest no one has accomplished anything on Earth without the help of others.

Concerning liberal thinking on rights:

Liberals have always been on the correct side of rights.  I mention things like women's suffrage and civil rights because its a no-brainer in today's society, but not too long liberals were arguing that these people deserved rights and conservative were fighting against them all the way.

Concerning exposure to differing ideas and military:

Soldiers live on a military base, and in combat areas only leave for missions.  On the other hand, a student studying abroad actually has to live in that society.  I shouldn't have to argue who would have the more exposure...

The problem I have with that line of thinking is generaly that liberals donate less to charity then conservatives whenever it's been studied.

When you compare by a percentage... Dick "He may actually be Satan" Cheney donates a WAY higher percentage of the money he makes then Al Gore... who donates so little to charity it's embarrising.

A LOT of the biggest liberal figureheads time and time again end up turning out to be some of the most stingy when it comes to giving, while people like Dick Cheney who people expect to eat puppies tend to donate gigantic amounts of money.

There are exceptions... like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet... but they generally are exceptions.

It's not a matter of "ONE GROUP CARES ABOUT OTHERS MORE".  That's just stupid.

The MAIN difference is that conservatives see charity as an individual act, and that it's every persons personal duty and responsibility to do right by the poor.

While Liberals think it's the governments job to do right by the poor and force everbody to do what the government deems is right by them.

It's likely why liberals are usually less giving when it comes to donating to charity... they see paying their taxes as part of "doing for others" while conservatives don't and think government money given to charity is mostly a waste. 

Exert of source.

http://www.arthurbrooks.net/whoreallycares/excerpt.html

Incidentally, moderates give less to charity then both Liberals and Conservatives apparently.

I'd guess because a lot of moderates are probably people who just don't care... which just about anyone can tell you...

Apathy is the true enemy to charity.

I mean, look how the donations fly in whenever there is a giant ass catastrophe... think if people always gave like that.

I mean, as bad as Haiti, Chile, Katrina... all this stuff is... i bet the death tolls are matches daily by plenty of causes that could use charity.

How many homeless people die a year?  Millions?

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Voting Record

House of Representatives:

Democrats for: 152

Democrats against: 96

Republicans for: 138

Republicans against: 34

Senate:

Democrats for: 46

Democrats against: 21

Republicans for: 27

Republicans against: 6

----------------------------------------------------------

Surprise surprise!!!

In one of the most important victories for rights in America, only 62% of Democrats voted for it, compared to 80% of Republicans. That's 117 Democrats who tried to vote it down, compared to only 40 Republicans. Every single southern Democratic senator voted against it, as well as 92 of the 103 southern Democrats in the House of Representatives (a whopping 89%). And if I remember correctly, the modern-day Republican Party was actually founded by anti-slavery activists. *shock-and-awe*

To conclude: conservatives were fighting for human rights LONG before the liberals ever were.

To be fair... those democrats that voted against the Civil Rights act later joined the republicans... but your point does stand.

Did he mention democrats in his post? No he mentioned liberals, they are not one and the same. They were even less one and the same before the civil rights act was passed.

Liberals were the people fighting for womens rights/black rights etc. Equality of rights is one of the central tennants of liberalism, you can't really be a liberal without it.

The fact that you're talking about Republicans back when they were founded and Democrats in the '60's as if it was happening today doesn't really make sense for the point you're making.

WRONG!

In the past Democrats were conservative and Republicans were liberal.  Around the time of Kennedy and Nixon, Democrats switched from being the conservative party of the South to the liberal party of the North, and the Republicans switched accordingly.

Thus, Democrat does not mean liberal and Conservative does not mean Republican.  There are still many liberal Republicans in the northeast, including Scott Brown who the conservatives view as a savior even though he supports gay marriage, abortion, and the like.  Also, there are many conservative Democrats in the South, including Robert Byrd who use to be a member of the KKK.

Beat me to the punch :)

Kasz,

At most, its an argument of means, liberals for taxes and conservative for charity.  I would like to point out, however, that donations to charity are tax deductable, so they aren't an accurate measure of 'caring' (just as having to pay taxes isn't an accurate measure of caring) and that government spending on charitable work does more good than private charity.  A government providing public healthcare does a lot more than any private healthcare charity could ever hope to accomplish.