Calgary's IQ Goes Down....Sarah Palin In Town Tonight

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

You honestly believe because someone has a degree they are automatically an intelligent person, and smarter than most that don't?

He may not be saying that, and I think he's overstretched his point, however in my four years of University I'd like to think I became smarter.

If we both grabbed a random sample of 100 university grads and a random sample of 100 non-university grads, my money's on the first group.

Anyway back to the point of Palin. She's the best thing to ever happen to Democrats. She is fracturing the republicans right before our eyes. She is what Preston Manning was to Canada's right.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

He may not be saying that, and I think he's overstretched his point, however in my four years of University I'd like to think I became smarter.

If we both grabbed a random sample of 100 university grads and a random sample of 100 non-university grads, my money's on the first group.

If we measured the IQs of university graduates with the IQs of non-university graduates that come from similar backgrounds, upbringings, and value systems, they would likely be very, very similar.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

If we measured the IQs of university graduates with the IQs of non-university graduates that come from similar backgrounds, upbringings, and value systems, they would likely be very, very similar.

That would make sense if acceptance into University was done by way of a lottery. Unless your point is that you think IQ and high school marks are uncorrelated. I can't tell if that's the point you are trying to make, either way I doubt it and I'd love to see proof of that. That sounds to me like the opposite of intuitive.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by driveway

Oh heck yeah. And while you're entitled to believe that Obama was just spouting BS (and I'll admit, he's done some stuff that bug me so far), I'm a liberal and happen to like his BS a whole bunch.

I'd rather a president who spouted BS that I liked than one who spouts BS that drives me nuts.

I think Obama's bigger problem is his Democratic Congress. Give him either a Republican Congress or some Democrats that aren't a bunch of morons(Reid, Pelosi) and he might be able to do some good.

Anyway, totally off-topic question, but as a conservative (or at least more conservative than me), how do you feel about the recent Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to donate unlimited funds to political campaigns?

Honestly, I can't say either way. On one hand I absolutely loathe the fact that corporations will be allowed to basically buy a presidency which you KNOW they will. Big oil and big security companies have the most money to burn and you KNOW they'll be even more involved in the lobbying to put their candidates in.

On the other hand there is the element of free speech. While using free speech to defend the ruling(which is what the Supreme Court did and I think they're wrong with that)....is stupid, you have to admit it still plays a role.

Personally I think the whole issue should be solved by public financing. Have a set amount of money given to each candidate and make them campaign with that on an equal slope. Make sure its enough to cover everything, but not enough that they can buy unlimited amount of TV ads.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SebC

You think our Conservatives are fiscally prudent?

I think both the Liberals and Conservatives have done a decent job when it comes to managing the budget.

Sure in a perfect world we don't want any debt, but if its within manageable levels I have no problem with it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

Since some of you think the following are not an indication of intelligence then I guess she hasn't done anything.

1. Has a university degree.
2. Has been the governor of a US state.
3. Put herself in position to be a nominee to be the VP of United Status.

Seems you're mentioning qualifications more than you are intelligence.

Politicians aren't necessarily intelligent people. Most of them are bubbling fools with a lot of money.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

In your world it is an insult. In my world it is not. DO YOU GET THAT POINT.

We exist in the same world. Do you get that point?

Whatever, it's like arguing with Flip used to be. You seem completely unable to comprehend that what people understand you to say IS what you said, regardless of how you intended it. Failure to communicate your meaning is your fault, not the reader's.

[bcb]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think Obama's bigger problem is his Democratic Congress. Give him either a Republican Congress or some Democrats that aren't a bunch of morons(Reid, Pelosi) and he might be able to do some good.



Honestly, I can't say either way. On one hand I absolutely loathe the fact that corporations will be allowed to basically buy a presidency which you KNOW they will. Big oil and big security companies have the most money to burn and you KNOW they'll be even more involved in the lobbying to put their candidates in.

On the other hand there is the element of free speech. While using free speech to defend the ruling(which is what the Supreme Court did and I think they're wrong with that)....is stupid, you have to admit it still plays a role.

Personally I think the whole issue should be solved by public financing. Have a set amount of money given to each candidate and make them campaign with that on an equal slope. Make sure its enough to cover everything, but not enough that they can buy unlimited amount of TV ads.

Therein lies the problem with the US political system. Individuals and corporations can contribute unlimited funds to their candidates, essentially writing the policy book for them.

Say what you want about Canada's system, but at least here, corporations can't contribute to political parties and individuals are limited to ~$1000 per year.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by jammies

We exist in the same world. Do you get that point?

Whatever, it's like arguing with Flip used to be. You seem completely unable to comprehend that what people understand you to say IS what you said, regardless of how you intended it. Failure to communicate your meaning is your fault, not the reader's.

Fair enough. But some people choose to understand what they want. Like you seem to with my posts. You already have a pre-determined idea of what I am saying. You assume that I am bashing people when I am not.

Anyway, stop responding to my posts I don't really like how you think you are a superior communicator. You probably are. But I don't like your attitude. Seriously. Stop responding to me.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think both the Liberals and Conservatives have done a decent job when it comes to managing the budget.

Sure in a perfect world we don't want any debt, but if its within manageable levels I have no problem with it.

Oh I have no problems with deficit spending in a recession. It's what they did before the recession (like cutting the GST) that doesn't fit my definition of fiscal prudence.

[troutman]

Liberals have higher IQs!

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/03/01/l...her-iqs-study/

Religious conservatives won’t like this: according to new research, the most intelligent among us are atheist liberals. In an article for Social Psychology Quarterly, Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist from the London School of Economics and Political Science, argues there’s an evolutionary explanation behind his findings. Kanazawa found that young adults who identify as “non-religious” and “very liberal” had an average IQ of 103—six points higher than their devout, “very conservative” peers. According to Kanazawa, this is due to the fact that humans, who began as hunter-gatherers, are biologically engineered to be conservative and care “only about the people we associate with,” such as family, friends and kin. Likewise, hunter gatherers sought to explain natural phenomena—which he describes as “evolutionarily novel”—through religion. More intelligent humans, he says, have been able to evaluate these elements and decide what they mean.

[Vulcan]

Religious conservatives won’t like this: according to new research, the most intelligent among us are atheist liberals. In an article for Social Psychology Quarterly, Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist from the London School of Economics and Political Science, argues there’s an evolutionary explanation behind his findings. Kanazawa found that young adults who identify as “non-religious” and “very liberal” had an average IQ of 103—six points higher than their devout, “very conservative” peers.

I buy the research but there someone goes again, equating the non-religious with atheists while insulting god as being an explanation for natural phenomena.

[SteveToms]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

Fair enough. But some people choose to understand what they want. Like you seem to with my posts. You already have a pre-determined idea of what I am saying. You assume that I am bashing people when I am not.

Anyway, stop responding to my posts I don't really like how you think you are a superior communicator. You probably are. But I don't like your attitude. Seriously. Stop responding to me.

Why did you come back anyways?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

Fair enough. But some people choose to understand what they want. Like you seem to with my posts. You already have a pre-determined idea of what I am saying. You assume that I am bashing people when I am not.

Anyway, stop responding to my posts I don't really like how you think you are a superior communicator. You probably are. But I don't like your attitude. Seriously. Stop responding to me.

Use the ignore feature. Other people may be interested in what I have to say about your uninformed and poorly worded opinions, so I'll just keep responding as I see fit, thanks.

Lastly, I'm hardly the only one "assuming" you're bashing people. When one person "misunderstands" you, it might be them. When many do, it's you.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by SteveToms

Why did you come back anyways?

Is that a real word?

I come back because this is a decent site to buy tickets to the Flames games.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by jammies

Use the ignore feature. Other people may be interested in what I have to say about your uninformed and poorly worded opinions, so I'll just keep responding as I see fit, thanks.

Lastly, I'm hardly the only one "assuming" you're bashing people. When one person "misunderstands" you, it might be them. When many do, it's you.

What bugs me most about you is. You could have used your intelligence to figure out what I was saying. Instead you would rather make comments about my "poorly worded opinions" than have a conversation about the topic on hand.

[Coach]

[SteveToms]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

Is that a real word?

I come back because this is a decent site to buy tickets to the Flames games.

Oh no! Jesus save me! I used a word that's not a real word! Smite me now.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by driveway

Anyway, totally off-topic question, but as a conservative (or at least more conservative than me), how do you feel about the recent Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to donate unlimited funds to political campaigns?

Of course it's a good thing, now Goldman Sachs and Citigroup don't need to hold back...

[The Goon]

The story on the news this morning is "You partially paid for Sarah Palin's visit" as Enmax, a public company, was one of the major sponsors. Ric McIvor and other councillors are looking into this. Worthy news story?