|
On July 04 2008 05:16 Mischy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2008 05:11 Holylight wrote:On July 04 2008 04:53 Mischy wrote:On July 04 2008 04:12 Holylight wrote:On July 04 2008 03:07 HamerD wrote:On July 04 2008 02:36 Frits wrote:On July 03 2008 23:18 HamerD wrote:
Imo if the average IQ of the USA were 120, ron paul would be the next US president.
EDIT this isn't really here to inspire discussion btw. I just feel like stating my aggravated opinion.
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. 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 + 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.
while you're at it, check the criticism on that wikipedia link, it's pretty heavy
|
On July 04 2008 05:25 HamerD wrote:
lol. Read my post where I said that's true and I say I use IQ of 120 as a euphemism for various good intellectual virtues. It's obvious that the higher someone's IQ, the higher the probability that they will understand things. Sure it does really mean little on it's own, but it's a nice succinct way for me to express my point; that people are dumb for not giving Ron Paul respect. Just in general dumb. He talks far more sense, philosophically and politically, than any of the other candidates. I left out economically there because I'm not qualified to pass judgment.
I guess you aren't qualified to talk about globalisation either then which is a very big issue today and should be very important in politics.
And about people being dumb for not "getting" Ron Paul? Well that's just your opinion and likely has nothing to with reality at all.
Anyone could make up grand schemes and have deep philosophical reasoning but if it doesn't correlate to the real world, it's pretty useless.
I'm not saying Ron Paul is bad though, I like many of his ideas but I think many libertarians (like you say you were) would like the notion of being able to choose between different healthcare solutions.
Then again american and european libertarians are probably different
|
Imo if the average IQ of the USA were 120,
STOP! It's HammerD time! Byooooo nunu nu byoooo nuh! [Logic] can't touch this!
|
Germany2896 Posts
@HamerD
So what do you think should happen to poor people who don't find a job(illness, too low qualification, too low intelligence, simply not enough jobs available,...). Who are ill but cannot afford treatment.
I have the feeling Ron Paul assumes
1) Everybody is intelligent enough to make responsable decisions
2) You are treated fairly by the industry, market, etc
3) You are never struck down by causes beyond your control
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 03 2008 23:43 HamerD wrote:k, that's your opinion. I stated mine. You spelling you're wrong doesn't exactly help your insistence that my opinion is incorrect. Ron Paul is the most honest, sensical and logical person one could have chosen from the list of presidential candidates IMO. He clearly has his head screwed on correctly, and is wiser and more perceptive than the other candidates. He just doesn't win the personality contest, because for some reason everyone has lumped him into this position of blabbering imbecile who doesn't know where he is; because they have taken phrases out of context and mistook pressure of people yelling at him for senility. American politics is almost entirely personality and corruption. Ron Paul is unfortunately underequipped on both counts to win the seat in the white house. Seriously, if you just look at what Obama talks, he just says disney catchphrases and tired, obvious and old oratorical devices in all of his speeches. He is better than McCain as a true republican. And, and this is still my opinion, I have to say that I think Ron Paul 'gets' a lot more than most people in the USA do. He is a more philosophical and reasonable president. That was all in my opinion, in case some retard wants to quote me as trying to state fact. Ps. The reason I support Ron Paul is because he has the most scruples and perception. In all honesty, I think economics and national safety will always be advised on by your admistrative staff. What's important, I think, is to present a good face of diplomacy and wisdom to the rest of the world; stability to the American people and to speak with clarity on important subjects. Presidents surely don't just lock themselves away in a room and decide all of the economic policies of a country, do they?
Ron Paul does not present a good face of diplomacy to the rest of the world. And honestly, it takes more than logic to be a good president. Presidents make history and history makes presidents. Obama is far more philosophical than either candidate (I mean, he actually understands philosophy and social science) and although he is a politician, his background efforts are a bit more genuine than some people are giving him credit for.
Arguments about IQ are fucking ridiculous. Why don't we have a debate whether Santa Clause exists or not (he doesn't.)
|
Why don't we have a debate whether Santa Clause exists or not (he doesn't.)
='(
|
On July 04 2008 05:52 PsycHOTemplar wrote:='(
lies
|
United States22883 Posts
Presidents surely don't just lock themselves away in a room and decide all of the economic policies of a country, do they?
BTW if Ron Paul had his way, he wouldn't have economic advisers. Surely you must appreciate some of the work of your countryman John Maynard Keynes.
|
|
|
United States22883 Posts
AHAHAHHAHA.
How can you talk about the virtue of logic when you believe that crap?
|
On July 04 2008 05:42 MasterOfChaos wrote:
@HamerD
So what do you think should happen to poor people who don't find a job(illness, too low qualification, too low intelligence, simply not enough jobs available,...). Who are ill but cannot afford treatment.
I have the feeling Ron Paul assumes
1) Everybody is intelligent enough to make responsable decisions
2) You are treated fairly by the industry, market, etc
3) You are never struck down by causes beyond your control
I was under the impression that Ron Paul advocates making social security an optional payment. If people care about others in society, let them show it. It is more democratic that way anyway. That may be wrong, but I am very busy and depressed, trying to find my passport which if I don't have will prevent me from going on holiday on saturday  . I can't research this ugh. I think he says if you pay into social security, you will get it if you need it. I do not think Ron Paul would completely ignore invalids. He would just streamline social security so that it is only given to people who deserve it. Older people get social security if they paid in when younger. Ron Paul is ALL about stopping people abusing the 'welfare state'.
|
On July 04 2008 05:30 Holylight wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2008 05:16 Mischy wrote:On July 04 2008 05:11 Holylight wrote:On July 04 2008 04:53 Mischy wrote:On July 04 2008 04:12 Holylight wrote:On July 04 2008 03:07 HamerD wrote:On July 04 2008 02:36 Frits wrote:On July 03 2008 23:18 HamerD wrote:
Imo if the average IQ of the USA were 120, ron paul would be the next US president.
EDIT this isn't really here to inspire discussion btw. I just feel like stating my aggravated opinion.
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. 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 + 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. while you're at it, check the criticism on that wikipedia link, it's pretty heavy
Nah i'm not gonna bother holylight  I have practicing to do and regardless, 90-100 is considered average anyway...theres not any real harm done here.
|
"Most Americans already know that Social Security is in trouble. Demographic shifts and an aging population have undermined the unspoken foundation of the system, which is the practice of taxing younger generations to pay benefits for current retirees. Younger generations, however, simply aren’t big enough to pay for the millions of baby boomers who will begin retiring in the next decade. When Social Security began in the 1930s, many Americans never reached age 65. Today, however, millions of retirees live well into their eighties and nineties. These realities mean the current system could collapse in as little as twenty to thirty years.
Seniors hope the system will hold together for the remainder of their lives, while younger working people hope government will somehow fix things before they retire. Not surprisingly, Congress has chosen to ignore the problem until it becomes acute. It’s hard to sell voters on austerity today to avoid a relatively distant crisis. Politicians usually operate on the opposite principle, by promising great things now and leaving the bills for others to pay later. "
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 04 2008 04:07 HamerD wrote:
Ugh. Well I'm not going to flame war with anyone. One insulting post is enough for me. You are welcome to doubt my intelligence fusionsdf, as you probably doubt the reflection in the mirror is actually the same person as you. You have loads of posts etc, and you are sometimes quite funny, I think, well at least yeah I think; so I'm not going to bother to respond to that shit.
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.
Mischy, how can you possibly fuck a person like this? Does he have a 14" cock made out of diamonds or something?
|
On July 04 2008 06:23 Jibba wrote:AHAHAHHAHA. How can you talk about the virtue of logic when you believe that crap?
How does astrology defy logic. It's never been even close to tested properly. All the bullshit scientific tests I have seen have COMPLETELY fucking failed to understand the point of astrology. I doubt you will ever have an open mind to something like this. Understanding astrology takes open eyes- you have to observe everyone around you and pick up on the patterns, and then realise that astrology helps you understand that. You also have to realise that astrology does not predict what someone's social personality is...just what their personality would be like if they had no impinging past experiences (huge changes to personality in everyone) and if their genetics didn't prevent them from being normal (ie an overworked testosterone production might lead to an irascible person, even if their astrological personality dictated otherwise).
That's beside the point, and you are welcome to hearing my defence of astrology at a later date. It is an incredibly hard thing, to get people to understand things like astrology. It really requires that you give it some leeway BEFORE tightening up. If you immediately try to squeeze astrology into a one line definition that is as certain as gravity, you will fail.
It seems like today I am attracting negativity, and a lot of foolish, e-bravado toting dickheads.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 04 2008 06:39 HamerD wrote:
It seems like today I am attracting negativity, and a lot of foolish, e-bravado toting dickheads.
Probably because you're a Cancer.
|
On July 04 2008 06:35 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2008 04:07 HamerD wrote:
Ugh. Well I'm not going to flame war with anyone. One insulting post is enough for me. You are welcome to doubt my intelligence fusionsdf, as you probably doubt the reflection in the mirror is actually the same person as you. You have loads of posts etc, and you are sometimes quite funny, I think, well at least yeah I think; so I'm not going to bother to respond to that shit.
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. Mischy, how can you possibly fuck a person like this? Does he have a 14" cock made out of diamonds or something?
Jibba how did you know?! :O Have you been gettin' it on with him behind my back? :'( But honestly he's really great...yeah sure he has a temper at times and yeah sometimes he does state an opinion that might be odd or stupid to some But hes really passionate about things and hes willing to listen and change his mind when information is given and explained (yes...hes capable of understanding your point of view and yes it IS possible to change his mind...i've done it before :O). He likes to debate as i'm sure you've noticed but it seems like everyone's just giving him a hard time instead of saying something that would change his opinion.
|
On July 04 2008 06:35 Jibba wrote:
Mischy, how can you possibly fuck a person like this? Does he have a 14" cock made out of diamonds or something?
Jesus christ. Man. Ok. The fact that you even used that word just...well...I have lost even more respect for you. Seriously, you want reasons? This is just for you jibba, cos both mischy and I agree you are an arrogant cunt. I would really prefer that people other than jibba don't read this, but I want to keep any argument we have public because I don't want to have to repeat myself to any douches who are like you. So be it if I'm subjected to ridicule. I know most people who would choose to insult me have worse lives than I, and accept if they are so dissatisfied with themselves that they feel the need to take it out on me:
+ Show Spoiler +
1. I'm far more talented than you'll ever be at lots of things (I have no proof but I really, deeply expect so)
2. I'm far more funny than you'll ever be (around people who aren't stupid, whooping american seals at least). I am not entirely in tune with TL humour because it is far below the usual sort of humour of my friends, and it's hard to stoop
3. I'm attractive
4. I'm definitely more intelligent, philosophical, wise, well-read, charming and intellectual than you
5. I'm an exciting, enthusiastic person; with a lot of time for any charitable cause. I'm a passionate and emotional philanthrope.
6. I'm an elitist, and refuse to accept anything but the best
7. I have an incredibly eclectic range of things I enjoy, which is stimulating for people around me. I am always busy. From sports/ gym, to philosophy and politics, to gaming, to music, to academia and esoteric exploration; I do a lot of things which means I have a lot of interesting things to talk about.
8. I take life seriously...I have a lot of emotion and passion. I care about things, and I'm very protective and loyal of and to my friends.
There really are many more reasons why michelle likes me, and I can say that with total confidence in her agreeing with what I've put. If I had to take a WILD shot in the dark jibba, I'd say you are either an air sign or an aries. Aries because they are pugnacious cunts, or an air sign because they always fail @ opening their minds. You are like my ex...oh shit I just checked yes you are a libra. Fucking typical haha! Man...you will never get anything more than the most basic bread and butter facts. Sorry, but you don't know what it's like to dream. You are another typical cynical air sign. You'll never be able to prove me wrong because you'll just respond with hostility. I really pity you, that you cannot see any further than the end of your nose.
Now when you do respond to this post, know that I won't respond in kind. Like I say, I'll busy myself with ONE direct flame. This isn't even a rude one, just a general negative assessment of your being. I don't want to discuss with you any further anything other than ron paul in this blog.
|
On July 04 2008 06:42 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2008 06:39 HamerD wrote:
It seems like today I am attracting negativity, and a lot of foolish, e-bravado toting dickheads.
Probably because you're a Cancer.
And so am I and probably (lol) 1/12 of the people of the earth.
Anywho, did you know that given the positions planets stand in today compared to when astrology was big like a long time ago (thousands of years), the signs have actually moved into the sign next after them, so a taurus would be a gemini and a cancer would be a leo, LOL
I gotta admit I've read alot on astrology as well and used to think it was pretty cool and accurate, because I'm like that, interested in unusual theories and ideas.
However I realized that it's a form of self-deception and very emotional belief, ie all scientific research says clearly that astrology does not work at all. It just doesn't
So ask yourself whether you are walking through life putting people into certain categories because of their starsign (which doesn't influence them at all) and if this actually has a big impact on how you behave and how you perceive others.
For me it was a mind-opener tbh, because like I said I used to be into astrology because it's fascinating, it's about people and what makes us tick...
BUT, it doesn't work.
|
well mischy already responded but im sure she'll back me up.
By the way, as regards your actual point you made: I completely disagree about your contrary opinion to mine regarding Ron Paul's diplomacy. Ron Paul doesn't present a bad face. Ron Paul is bloody close to the ideals of the founding fathers. He is always pressing the agenda of HEALING relationships with the middle east, which would ameliorate relationships EVERYWHERE. He is in favour of isolationism, a perfectly valid and respectable policy which Europe maintains. That does not mean cutting short diplomatic talks or state vists, christ no.
What makes you think Ron Paul would be a poor host for diplomats or other state leaders? The way he talks exudes intellectual leadership. He is never wont to raise his voice. I don't see what the hell you are talking about, to be honest. Of all the things that could be considered wrong with ron paul, how can you POSSIBLY say it is his diplomacy to foreign states? His foreign policy propositions are like the most diplomatic you could want :S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
