For conservatives, it must sound like “better red than dead” all over again. A new study in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health suggests that liberals live longer than conservatives in the United States. The researchers looked at more than 32,000 adults and tracked them over 15 years. The result was surprising: conservatives seemed to be expiring faster than their counterparts on the left. However, conservatives claimed to be happier than their counterparts in life.
It has been reported that Hillary Clinton has been working on a new campaign theme. Perhaps they should consider a “Vote Hillary Or Die” campaign.
Roman Pabayo, a community health researcher at the University of Nevada said that the group relied on more concrete data like actual death records than did prior studies. They also eliminated other factors by comparing conservatives and liberals of similar age, sex, and socioeconomic status. Notably, when divided simply between parties, Democratic and Republican party members died at the same rate, but when compared on ideological grounds, conservatives bit the dust first on average.
Subu V. Subramanian, a professor of population health and geography at Harvard was critical of the findings. His study relied on self-reporting and found that Republicans reported better health and they were 15% less likely to smoke. He also found that Republicans and conservatives were benefitted by being more religious and “more tied into social networks and organizations.”
It may still be too early for some conservatives to embrace wage equity and global warming. The difference in death rates is described by Subramanian as “slight” in the new study.
Source: USA Today
Well, I read the Unabomber Manifesto to provide the proof Mespo requested. Which as per usual he did not address.
Karen –
I am going to read that myself. I bet it is evil as all get out. lol Did you sterilize your brain and soul 😉
on 1, February 4, 2015 at 12:03 amNick Spinelli
Someone needs to get some cases. Mespo’s obsession w/ me is a little creepy, sorta like the Unabomber. The Unabomber was an anarchist. He was proudly “off the grid” the mantra of all environmental wackos. He was, above all else, a psychotic killer who hated industry. Sounds pretty radical left to me. Ted was disappointed w/ the left. They weren’t left enough. But, make up your own minds. If you think he was a Reagan voter, well…WTF can I say?
***************************
This is why you’re reading the Unibomber Manifesto. Credit where credt’s due.
Paul – he didn’t even want modern medicine or refrigeration, and he wanted to force that lifestyle on the world. Just a bunch of people sitting around a campfire, chopping down trees for warmth and probably wearing animal skins.
I wonder how much of his lunacy was due to his childhood illness, and the later discredited, cruel experiments at Harvard.
Aridog – no kidding. On top of everything, I can’t believe I read the Unabomber’s Manifesto. I need to go wash my brain.
From the Manifesto:
“215. The anarchist [34] too seeks power, but he seeks it on an
individual or small-group basis; he wants individuals and small groups
to be able to control the circumstances of their own lives. He opposes
technology because it makes small groups dependent on large
organizations.”
Karen – I have always thought of him as a Luddite (computers) because it threatened his profession (mathematics).
Excuse me, “Republican” should have been “conservative.”
mespo:
“Funny, despite 24 hours and all the sophistry the right around here could muster not one person credibly challenged with evidence the assertion that Nick flat out lied when he claimed the Unabomber was a liberal.”
Did you “lie” when you asserted that the Unabomber was a Republican? Or were you both simply mistaken?
I feel you have a tendency to lash out with hateful comments not commensurate with the provocation, which is surprising in a guest blogger with civility rules. I wish you would hold yourself to a higher standard.
mespo:
“I invite your contradictory quotes from the manifesto of which there are none. If you have nothing to say why don’t you do that.”
This is what I really enjoy about you, as a guest blogger here occasionally tasked with writing thought provoking, mature articles.
No, Republicans are not green anarchists trying to unmake the industrial revolution.
From the Manifesto:
“The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster
for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of
those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have
destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected
human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological
suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have
inflicted severe damage on the natural world.”
“We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system.
This revolution may or may not make use of violence:”
“The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of
traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological
progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that
you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the
economy of a society with out causing rapid changes in all other
aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably
break down traditional values.”
Does this sound Republican to you? He criticized both modern Leftists and conservatives, and proved rebellious, violent Leftists.
As was stated previously, he has been classified as a green anarchist.
I became self aware before Annie-Inga.
R2D2
“I became Self Aware before Annie and Inga”
And I am the one with Dissociative Personality Disorder here hmmmmm.
And with that last statement by Spinelli, we know why these threads unravel the way they often do. These types of vile characterizations of other commenters here is what usually STARTS the unraveling.
So what! No one really knows when their going to die, and let’s keep it that way. I’ve had skinny healthy friends who suddenly got cancer and died. I’ve known people who smoked and lived into their 90’s.
Let’s enjoy and appreciate the life given to us and work to make this a better world. As for me, I place my life in the hands of the Lord.
To your health dear blog buddies.
What DavidM said.
Mespo’s Midnight Malcontents, demons in their heads, strike while regular people sleep, declaring victory and patting themselves on the back. The former august weekend blogger has shown himself to be, a paper tiger, leading his Midnight Malcontents to victory..in their heads. Sad.
DBQ:
I think it’s a riot you decry name-calling even as you disparage Inga’s name and mine, too. Well-played.
mespo – Inga spent the better part of yesterday name calling and you were doing your fair share. Don’t play innocent. You are like the kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar say “Who, me?”
Karen S:
“mespo -you are selectively quoting the Unabomber Manifesto.”
**************
I invite your contradictory quotes from the manifesto of which there are none. If you have nothing to say why don’t you do that.
Chip s:
Believe me, it’s not your permission that’s required.
Happy:
Btw to equate nick’s philosophy with that of classic liberals John Stuart Mill or John Locke is laughable. Nick is a libertarian. Thus he has little in common with the philosophy of Mill or Locke who are the paradigm for classic liberalism. That’s the contradiction that I thought obvious to anyone watching. My mistake about the watchers.
Mespo727272
Can’t please all the socks here you know – lol – you are a scream – I feel very intellectually challenged by you – please don’t stop don’t stop don’t stop – I love it,
Oh, Mespo, make up another one to fool me so I have to prove myself to it alll over again pllleeeaaaseee?
Too bad now I know who another sock is by number. lol ;0
Do you number them in your drawers too????
You are the living end or the end living??
You do give yourself away so easlily
Hahahahahaha 😉
mespo wrote: “Nick is a libertarian. Thus he has little in common with the philosophy of Mill or Locke who are the paradigm for classic liberalism.”
What was one of Mill’s most famous works entitled? ON LIBERTY
Yeah, right, that has nothing to do with the liberty that Nick believes in.
I would say that both Mills and Locke provide a very solid foundation for Nick’s libertarian views.
Davidm2575
You have just cleared yourself of suspicion with me as your avatar added up to Mespos magic square number and I thought you might me a sock account the way you went after me because he and Anarchist have been attacking me lately about being mentally ill and all kinds of weird things – accusing me of being obsessive the way Nick did Anarchist you know?
Anyway, now you see the convoluted strategy going on here and see why I just laughed. I am actually addicted to economic theory for a hobby. I used to Subscribe to Jeff Hardings Daily Capitalist till he stopped. I still get the Mises Institute, and I I am open to discuss anything without getting mad. lol
I am friendly with Nick on the Blog and Aridog and we are all Classical Liberals I think lololol 😉
Funny, despite 24 hours and all the sophistry the right around here could muster not one person credibly challenged with evidence the assertion that Nick flat out lied when he claimed the Unabomber was a liberal. Even Nick eventually backed off to the anarchist position. Happy tried. Sadly he has no idea what a liberal is and didn’t read the cited work so he gets only points for trying to put lipstick on the pig. ((Leftwingers ( I suppose he means liberals since, after all,that was the topic) want “abolition of the state and private property”? Really You need to read more. You probably mean libertarian socialists. The usual criticism of liberals is that they want more state involvement not less. And what mainstream liberal is calling for the abolition of private property rights? Answer: None. And I am the one who doesn’t know terms of political philosophy? What a moroon!))
Anyway, I’d call that progress regardless.
mespo wrote: “Nick flat out lied when he claimed the Unabomber was a liberal.”
Only in your mind.
mespo wrote: “Even Nick eventually backed off to the anarchist position.”
The characterization of “backed off” is only in your mind. He was being a gentleman and avoided engaging you on the epithets you hurl.
mespo wrote: “((Leftwingers ( I suppose he means liberals since, after all,that was the topic) want “abolition of the state and private property”? … The usual criticism of liberals is that they want more state involvement not less. And what mainstream liberal is calling for the abolition of private property rights? Answer: None.”
You are sliding around by equating the political left with liberalism. The term liberal has broadly different meanings dependent upon context. Classical liberalism is a completely different thing from modern liberalism, and libertarianism fits into classical liberalism quite nicely, despite your apparent perception of them being opposites.
The important goal of “left wingers” is social and economic equality. They differ in how to get there. Anarchists claim that the way to get there is to get rid of government. In contrast, statists believe in government. Most liberals in government are not anarchists, for obvious reasons. Liberals in government are statists. That is why you hear a lot of political criticism directed toward them about making government too big. Those on the right want government, but they believe in the kind of limited government that Thomas Jefferson’s Republican Party believed in.
Among the statists on the left we have socialists and communists. Socialists do not believe in the private ownership of businesses and corporations. They believe in government owning the means of production in society. This happens through extensive regulation or through the government actually owning and running the businesses. According to Marxist philosophy, socialism is simply a stepping stone toward communism. In communism, not only is there no private ownership of business, but also there is no private ownership of property at all. Everybody has everything in common; hence, they are socially and economically equal once communism is achieved. This is the ultimate goal of all those on the left, including anarchists. Anarchists differ from Marx in that they believe the socialism step is unnecessary and that societies need to reject the State, private property, and capitalism, and jump right into an anarchist communist society.
davidm2575
mespo wrote: “By your own words that would make Nick a “classic liberal.” Contradict yourself much?”
It is obvious that Nick is a classical liberal. He has made it very clear that he is a freedom loving libertarian. Maybe you don’t know what a classical liberal is just like you don’t know whether an anarchist is left or right on the political scale.
A political philosophy that seeks social equality through the abolition of the state and private property is left wing. The unabomber’s criticism of the left was regarding those in the left who sought to establish social equality through government. He rebelled against technology and government.
In contrast to the left, those on the right favor governmental structure and accept social inequality as normal. The right believe that individuals who have more should voluntarily share and aid those who have less so that nobody in society lacks what they need. In the end, however, the right accepts that all are not equal in what they have, nor should they be equal. It is sufficient that everybody has enough for their needs.
Your perception of terms is bewildering.
Davidm2575
Did you read everything up there? Remember when your friend Tyger was defending you for being insulted by the Anarchist – all I am saying is he is divisive and he is doing it again. I apologized to you and I don’t even know if you read it.
I know what a Classic Liberal is and realize there is an English school that John Locke was the Father of and he was enormously influenced by Voltaire and Rousseau which was a tremendous influence to the Western World. took over here and I am aware of Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand. I know what laisses-faire business is and I also know who Milton Friedman is.
I know what the dangers of a person like George W Bush the armed prophet of Classical Liberalism.
Yes, I do like to throw terms around and I am sorry if it was bewildering 😉
Karen…this thread fell in to the toilet long ago. Even the diversion of ice hockey, delineated by commenters who seldom agree on much, that tried to salvage it with some harmony got tossed under the bus. I’d consider it an act of mercy if Professor Turley removed my few comments, all civil, top to bottom so that I won’t be associated with & embarrassed by this POS thread in future archives.
Aridog – I would have to say that JT got exactly what he expected when he posted this thread. The undead from FFS reappeared. He raised the undead. 😉