EPTImo (ron paul) - Page 3
| Blogs > HamerD |
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
| ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On July 04 2008 02:36 Frits wrote: I don't know man I believe that if you had an iq of 120 you wouldn't make such retarded statements. Ron Paul is popular on the internet because he only appeals to people who have no experience with the outside world and have no idea how society works. It's more in the region of 135-140, but anyway you are entitled to your prominent brow, heavy-set jaw, hunched over stance and hunter-gatherer-intelligence-level opinion. I would say that behind all your intellectual bravado is really just ignorance and also return your comment right back to you. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
$5 says godwins law kicks in within the next 10 posts | ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
Ron Paul has poor public speaking skills, out of any candidate recently, Obama is by far the best orator of the group. If you don't like his speaking skills, you are likely overly cynical or biased (I'm not saying you have to support him or like/agree with his policies, or even his candidacy... but any unbiased person should be able to listen to him and say "at least this man knows how to talk to a crowd"). Furthermore, if you don't think this is an important quality for a President to have, you are not living in reality. The President should command attention when he speaks, he should be able to move people with his words, and he should have a certain air about him that says "I am the President, and I know what I'm doing" ... Ron Paul does not have this characteristic. The millions who support McCain, Obama, and Clinton can attest to the fact that Ron Paul simply did not draw them in (I can guarantee there are millions of affluent, educated, and knowledgeable voters who have been following the positions of every candidate and made carefully reasoned choices about whom to support). Simply having good sound policies, and sensible ideas for how to run the country don't mean you will make an effective President. You have to look at many other factors than just "here are my great ideas on how to fix the country". You have to look at : leadership skills in potential crisis situations, projected image in the international political scene, domestic leadership, ability to actually DO things, and the speaking bit as I mentioned above... these are just a few examples of qualities that I just don't see in Ron Paul. To me, Ron Paul is just a thinker, he's got some great ideas, but I don't see him as the head of the country. I see him coming up with ideas and giving them to people with more gumption and initiative to actually carry them out. | ||
micronesia
United States24803 Posts
On July 04 2008 03:07 HamerD wrote: It's more in the region of 135-140, You didn't type '200' correctly. BTW: IQ is dumb. | ||
|
MarklarMarklar
Fiji1823 Posts
| ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On July 04 2008 03:15 Xeris wrote: "He clearly has his head screwed on correctly, and is wiser and more perceptive than the other candidates." - is it just me or does this sound a lot like stating your own opinion as a fact? YOU SEE. YOU ALL FUCKING SEE!!!!!!!!!!!! I FUCKING TOLD YOU THIS WOULD HAPPEN ><. SEND ME TO THE NUTHOUSE EINSTEIN. YOU FUCKING SSSSEEEEEE!!! There's always one idiot who thinks you aren't stating your opinion when you clearly are. By the way, Xeris, look at the bottom of that POST. I stated, clearly, that everything above it was MY OPINION. Fucking hell. On July 04 2008 03:15 Xeris wrote: Ron Paul has poor public speaking skills, out of any candidate recently, Obama is by far the best orator of the group. No...Obama has good public speaking skills when speaking to dumb, unwise, unsavvy, ill-educated 'morans'. Sorry mate, but I don't give a shit if you don't stutter, if you can raise your fucking voice, or if you can CONSTANTLY REPEAT TRICOLON CRESCENDOS AND OTHER..ORATORICAL.......DEVICES *waits for applause*. Devices like, the old man who doesn't have enough money for gas, the lady who can't afford to send her children to school, the youngster who doesn't have enough change for a penny sweet. (Ps that's one of obama's most irritatingly ubiquitous techniques and believe me it grates if you just fucking keep one ear open for it). Obama has shown no talent for speaking on an intellectual level. I'd expect that he could, though doubt it would be as good as Ron Paul, but he hasn't tried to, because he is not going for that vote because it means nothing. Intelligence and children had are inversely proportional. When Ron Paul speaks on issues, as long as you are used to hearing debate and clear, succinct, uncoloured sense; you will realise that he addresses the issues directly every time. He has no fucking time to make stupid ass comparisons designed to make sure everyone's attention is drawn. And he certainly doesn't have time to play the stupid popularity game, reminding everyone that he is FIGHTING FOR THEM AND FOR ALL OF OUR DREAMS WHICH WILL ALL BE FULFILLED BECAUSE THAT'S HOW GOVERNMENT WORKS. My OP point, in this context, is that if the average IQ of the USA were 120, then I think Ron Paul would be FAR more understood as the BEST orator and debater of the group. On July 04 2008 03:15 Xeris wrote: Furthermore, if you don't think this is an important quality for a President to have, you are not living in reality. The President should command attention when he speaks, he should be able to move people with his words, and he should have a certain air about him that says "I am the President, and I know what I'm doing" ... Ron Paul does not have this characteristic. The millions who support McCain, Obama, and Clinton can attest to the fact that Ron Paul simply did not draw them in (I can guarantee there are millions of affluent, educated, and knowledgeable voters who have been following the positions of every candidate and made carefully reasoned choices about whom to support). Again, this is correct, but it completely misses the point of my OP. I wasn't saying 'Ron Paul is the person who should be leading America'. I would expect the average IQ of America is probably like 90 or something. And by the way, I do mean IQ as a euphamism for just general social and political, philosophical and intellectual awareness; not just number crunching capacity. If those attributes were more prominent, and I'm sad to say they are clearly not, then I would expect it to be the case that Ron Paul would appeal to a lot more people. On July 04 2008 03:15 Xeris wrote: Simply having good sound policies, and sensible ideas for how to run the country don't mean you will make an effective President. Correct. Diplomacy is important. Ron Paul is very diplomatic. Sensibility and humility is important. I don't see Ron Paul constantly lauding himself as the divine emperor with the master plan. I fail to see anything else that's important. And don't say LEADERSHIP. Because, leadership is a good way to keep the masses silent, or get them to do what you want them to, but IF WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS BULLCRAP THEN YOU WILL NOT BE AN EFFECTIVE PRES. You say effective...and in reality I would say that 75% of the effectiveness of a president is the result of their policies. Policies are SO important. For example, George W Bush had leadership and was very capable of (rigging the ballots) harnessing the fear of the nation after 9/11 etc. He got elected into a second term. Does that make him effective? Fuck no! All of his policies are wack. His administration is a big fucking tard of an administration.[/QUOTE] On July 04 2008 03:15 Xeris wrote: You have to look at : leadership skills in potential crisis situations, projected image in the international political scene, domestic leadership, ability to actually DO things, and the speaking bit as I mentioned above... these are just a few examples of qualities that I just don't see in Ron Paul. To me, Ron Paul is just a thinker, he's got some great ideas, but I don't see him as the head of the country. I see him coming up with ideas and giving them to people with more gumption and initiative to actually carry them out. I don't see what you are talking about in the first part. I think that Ron Paul would do the MOST things, and say the LEAST things. He would get shit done, because he wouldn't be constantly desperate to corral the masses. He'd let his actions motivate them. | ||
|
| ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On July 04 2008 03:07 HamerD wrote: It's more in the region of 135-140, but anyway you are entitled to your prominent brow, heavy-set jaw, hunched over stance and hunter-gatherer-intelligence-level opinion. I would say that behind all your intellectual bravado is really just ignorance and also return your comment right back to you. there is no fucking way you have an IQ over 100 none | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
I wasn't entirely truthful. I've had my iq tested twice officially for schools, to see if I needed a laptop etc on account of my awful handwriting and organisation, and yes well my visual perception iq is only 120, whereas my verbal/comprehension iq is 140. So it would be, I guess, more correct to say my IQ is 130, that or thereabouts. Though in this situation, in which purely the comprehension of concepts is important, I think it's safe to say what I said. | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
Basically pulling out all the stops and expecting the market to take care of everybody is an idealogically satisfying one, but not one that is really practicable on a grand scale | ||
|
Holylight
Korea (South)460 Posts
On July 04 2008 03:07 HamerD wrote: It's more in the region of 135-140, but anyway you are entitled to your prominent brow, heavy-set jaw, hunched over stance and hunter-gatherer-intelligence-level opinion. I would say that behind all your intellectual bravado is really just ignorance and also return your comment right back to you. loool you're seriously saying your IQ is around 130-140 and the average IQ of America is 90? If you say stuff like that without being sarcastic you are the moran here | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
On July 04 2008 03:07 HamerD wrote: It's more in the region of 135-140, but anyway you are entitled to your prominent brow, heavy-set jaw, hunched over stance and hunter-gatherer-intelligence-level opinion. I would say that behind all your intellectual bravado is really just ignorance and also return your comment right back to you. Just wondering, what do you study. (And what university.) ps. Did you just try to come off as intelligent because lol that was the lamest attempt ever at using big words to impress someone. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On July 04 2008 04:11 GeneralStan wrote: There are many very intelligent people out there who think that dismantling the federal reserve and abolishing the income tax aren't good ideas, that globalization is a good thing, and that the market isn't going to work naturally in a way that favors the average American. Basically pulling out all the stops and expecting the market to take care of everybody is an idealogically satisfying one, but not one that is really practicable on a grand scale Ok, thank you for at least providing a point of view on the matter at hand. Now I'm not at all qualified to talk about economic issues, but that doesn't mean people can win an argument just by hiding behind economic concepts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a president can't just come into office and change everything immediately. He can't completely rewrite your country without congressional approval, right? Forgive me if that's wrong. Now one, basic, and I think very important point, again my opinion, is this: regardless of how bungling any mismanagement of the US economy could be by any potential president: it would never do worse to the US economy than the full scale Iraq occupation. But actually, looking over Ron Paul's ideas, the only one I really disagree with is a free market healthcare system, when a national health system is the only truly human way to go towards healthcare. I really don't understand what you mean about globalisation. I am clearly ignorant in that respect. I was under the impression that Ron Paul wanted no occupation of other countries and empire building. Being a libertarian, I'd be surprised if he wanted to stop MaccyD's from taking over the world. But fair enough, if he does, it doesn't mean much to me lol. Please enlighten me. I also don't understand your point about hurting poor people. Paul's intentions are virtuous. Sure they may be wildly idealistic, but I don't see how (my ignorance) they would fail. It's also, I believe, important to note that he doesn't want to return to the post war gold standard, but he does want to return to a steadier system than 'boom and bust' fed. Closing remark of Ron Paul's address to congress regarding the issue: "In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans' standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve." | ||
|
Mischy
United States179 Posts
On July 04 2008 04:12 Holylight wrote: loool you're seriously saying your IQ is around 130-140 and the average IQ of America is 90? If you say stuff like that without being sarcastic you are the moran here um...hes not that incorrect...the average IQ for most nations is 90-100... + Show Spoiler + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations and heres IQ by state: http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/061022_iq.htm | ||
|
Holylight
Korea (South)460 Posts
On July 04 2008 04:53 Mischy wrote: um...hes not that incorrect...the average IQ for most nations is 90-100... + Show Spoiler + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations and heres IQ by state: http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/061022_iq.htm um yeah and the editor also says this on that site: "We also publish on VDARE.COM a few writers, for example Jared Taylor, whom I would regard as “white nationalist,” in the sense that they aim to defend the interests of American whites. They are not white supremacists. They do not advocate violence. They are rational and civil. They brush their teeth. But they unashamedly work for their people—exactly as La Raza works for Latinos and the Anti-Defamation League works for Jews. Get used to it. As immigration policy drives whites into a minority, this type of interest-group "white nationalism" will inexorably increase. You read it first on VDARE.COM—and if you don’t like it, let’s have an immigration moratorium now. Umm, I dunno what to make of that. I will find more "interesting" writings on that site | ||
|
Mischy
United States179 Posts
On July 04 2008 05:11 Holylight wrote: um yeah and the editor also says this on that site: "We also publish on VDARE.COM a few writers, for example Jared Taylor, whom I would regard as “white nationalist,” in the sense that they aim to defend the interests of American whites. They are not white supremacists. They do not advocate violence. They are rational and civil. They brush their teeth. But they unashamedly work for their people—exactly as La Raza works for Latinos and the Anti-Defamation League works for Jews. Get used to it. As immigration policy drives whites into a minority, this type of interest-group "white nationalism" will inexorably increase. You read it first on VDARE.COM—and if you don’t like it, let’s have an immigration moratorium now. Umm, I dunno what to make of that. I will find more "interesting" writings on that site yeah sure or i'll just find a different site with statistics lol...your choice. I'll find another site anyway. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24803 Posts
| ||
|
Holylight
Korea (South)460 Posts
Of course people have different IQ levels but VDARE.com seems to be very much against immigration and love to talk about IQ and those things combined with the talk about white supremacy turns me off. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
| ||
| ||
