No, none of them were. Nor were they what you'd call "conservatives," advocating a radical change in the existing form of government and all.
Somehow I think you can reassure yourself that your not-exactly-liberalism does not indicate that you are stupider than the people of startlingly average intelligence studied here.Anyhow, I'll give you a pass for being not-exactly-liberal if you'll give me a pass for my vague, ambivalent syncretism.
Who said anything about being a conservative?people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs.They were signing a document stating"…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…"Maybe they were confused then.
All dummieshttp://tinyurl.com/yb2c9oz
No, none of them were. Nor were they what you'd call "conservatives," advocating a radical change in the existing form of government and all.
Somehow I think you can reassure yourself that your not-exactly-liberalism does not indicate that you are stupider than the people of startlingly average intelligence studied here.Anyhow, I'll give you a pass for being not-exactly-liberal if you'll give me a pass for my vague, ambivalent syncretism.
Who said anything about being a conservative?people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs.They were signing a document stating"…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…"Maybe they were confused then.
Ah. Well, being misunderstood is a risk you run when you value brevity over clarity, or precision.My thoughts on assigning religiosity to the Founders are already on record.
Why use 2 words when you can use 15!