PDA

View Full Version : Voting and IQ


Asher
09-11-2004, 21:56:25
http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

Speaks for itself.

Asher
09-11-2004, 21:58:38
And yes, I realize the IQ numbers are questionable. It's just funny.

Chris
09-11-2004, 21:58:54
Yes it does, clueless people can't understand why they lose election after election, so the answer to them is the opposition is dumb.

Japher
09-11-2004, 22:01:15
god damn chads have an IQ of 156!!!

Chris
09-11-2004, 22:03:17
I wish I was Chad.

Japher
09-11-2004, 22:04:51
he's much much smarter than Keith

Chris
09-11-2004, 22:07:45
156 is quite a number, Keith will never beat that.

Darkstar
09-11-2004, 22:13:59
They cannot admit it because they don't believe that the American public view the "War on Terror" and the "War on Iraq" as the same issue. So that splits the #1 determiner of votes.

Of course, the Demons have spent the last 19 months trying to convince the American public that they are not the same issue, and failed with the majority. Might have something to do with them stating they were the same issue prior to the stepping up of the Prez Contest.

Chris
09-11-2004, 22:16:14
Makes you wonder about the IQ of whom put that together.

Asher
09-11-2004, 22:19:31
Perhaps it was someone smart enough to know that the American people are dumb enough to be mislead.

Take, for example, the baseless claim that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Chris
09-11-2004, 22:22:41
Or that stupid people vote Republican, when we all know the opposite is the case.

Darkstar
09-11-2004, 22:34:57
That's funny Asher. As in, they did find WMD there. Just not the amount they thought should be there. Of course, all the world thought they were there. Including Iraq itself. So that was one helluv bluff. That level of bluff hasn't been pulled since Operation Overlord in WW2. (Well, technically the operation to cover up Overlord, but I don't recall what that was called.)

Here's a question... why is it that the more educated a black or hispanic is, the more likely they vote Repukington in the US?

The American voting public wasn't fooled. Just some die hard Demonsuckers... and their media, fooling all the world into thinking Kerry had a real chance.

TV4Fun
09-11-2004, 22:37:34
I think it's more interesting that states actually have average IQs.

Immortal Wombat
09-11-2004, 22:52:26
I can't believe that half of the residents of Mississippi have an IQ of less than 85. Those stats are bollocks. But thankyou Asher for bringing them to our attention. Clearly a worthwhile exercise.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
09-11-2004, 23:12:44
Originally posted by Darkstar
Here's a question... why is it that the more educated a black or hispanic is, the more likely they vote Repukington in the US?

The U.S. education system is really a highly-tooled brainwashing system. Just ask any NSA operative, they'll tell you.

Asher
10-11-2004, 00:33:22
There were no WMD found in Iraq, as in, the kind they talked about as justification for invading. They just found standard conventional weapons.

Shining1
10-11-2004, 01:42:16
Certainly it's a highly disputable point that anyone would vote for Kerry instead of Bush simply because they were smarter. Kerry was hardly the logicial, obvious choice for president either...

Koshko
10-11-2004, 02:39:12
Well that page has been proven fake and inaccurate multiple times at another place I visit, but I don't feel like going through it again. Basically the highest level state's IQ avg is about 104 and the lowest level state's IQ avg is about 95. Although there is a bit of a Rep dominant low end of the scale, quite a few states above the 100 mark went Rep too.

JM^3
10-11-2004, 04:33:20
yah, anyone who knows a thing about IQs would know that those numbers are all way too low (For averages)

Jon Miller

JM^3
10-11-2004, 04:35:46
hmm

I would believe the low being 95

but the high being only 104 I find a bit doubtful, I would beleive the 113 number a bit more

(or the distribution being tighter and all states having 104+-4)

Jon Millwe

TV4Fun
10-11-2004, 05:03:43
linked from that same site: http://sq.4mg.com/stateIQ-income.htm their. Their number seem to be a little different.

Darkstar
10-11-2004, 22:53:56
Originally posted by Asher
There were no WMD found in Iraq, as in, the kind they talked about as justification for invading. They just found standard conventional weapons.

Sucking Kitty's diahrea again? Check the actual documents on record. They were indeed WMD found. Just not in the numbers expected. Frankly, I drive over more WMD travelling to and from work then were found in Iraq, but their were weapons, Asher. It's still a total failure of the worlds various Military Intelligence, though. So no worries about that.

Of course, Kerry claimed that tons of WMD were crossing the borders into Iraq every day. So maybe that's where all those WMD came from. But that's just a Politician's Intelligence failure... one of the many reasons the majority of people didn't vote for him.

Asher
11-11-2004, 00:36:49
There were no WMD found.

None.

Zero.

I don't care what you make up or want to believe.

Darkstar
11-11-2004, 00:45:09
There were WMD found. That's a fact. In fact, that was part of the 18 month old explosives issue that wasn't secured.

Were there the amounts claimed? Hell no. But the amount was not zero. The amount was not enough to justify going in. The UK has more lieing around forgotten in their arsenal corners. The French have more. Hell, there's probably more still rotting away forgotten in Germany then was found in Iraq.

But there WMD found in Iraq. That's a fact.

Ignore facts all you like Asher. But it doesn't change what was found, documented, and subsequently destroyed. Hell, CNN played video footage of some of the found WMD. Just to show how little of it there was!

It is incorrect to say there was none. It is, however, correct to say that the amount found was insignificant.

Thats the known facts.

Sir Penguin
11-11-2004, 00:46:25
Originally posted by Darkstar
Frankly, I drive over more WMD travelling to and from work then were found in Iraq, but their were weapons,
Apparently, Darkstar is Maj. Kong.

SP

Asher
11-11-2004, 00:52:42
There were no WMD found. The explosives missing were conventional weapons.

Sir Penguin
11-11-2004, 00:54:51
Don't argue with Darkstarfacts.

SP

Darkstar
11-11-2004, 02:34:57
There were no stockpiles found. There were WMD found.

here's a few examples:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html
Polish troops capture cyclosarin loaded munitions

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121035,00.html
Lab results back from the testing of the chemical weapon used (poorly) on American troops by Iraqi resistors - Results: From Saddam's Sarin Stockpile, manufactured in 1991.

There's plenty more of bits and pieces of his former stockpiles that were found and have turned up.

To claim there were none found is incorrect. To claim that no stockpiles were found is. To claim there were no WMD found is also incorrect. To claim that insignificant amounts (tactically or strategicly) were found is correct.

The insignificant bits, if used properly, would still fuck up your university, Ash. But the amounts were not significant on tactical or strategic scale.

SP is 100% right. Don't argue with Darkstarfacts.

protein
11-11-2004, 02:39:37
So no weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION then? Just a few bullets and bits of paper and Fox news thinks that the killing of 100,000 Iraqis was worthwhile.

Darkstar
11-11-2004, 02:40:18
Additionally, the explosives were of a high grade that is used in nuclear weapons. That's what the UN Weapon Inspectors noted, and why it was locked up in the first place. That's why some people were trying to make a big deal about them... WMD components that were known and that "America" let evaporate or be looted by the resistors to be used against the Coalition. (Nice implication is that if we let that happen to the explosives, maybe those "stockpiles" got looted as well.)

Darkstar
11-11-2004, 02:46:37
Protein, wrong. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Just one Sarin loaded shell properly set off in a metro area would do nasty things. But in army versus army terms, it's insignificant.

Hell, Russia is missing several dozen suitcase sized nuclear bombs. Sold off to the black market, according to Russia's own security investigators. Where are those? They won't *destroy* a city the size of London or New York, Protien, but they'll fuck up a good sized chunk of it.

Again, it's a matter of proper use of language. For there to have been *no* WMD found, then *none* should have been found. Some were found. Enough to fuck up several someone's day. But not enough to fuck up all of Poland, for instance.

protein
11-11-2004, 02:52:25
Where exactly in Iraq did they find these Sarin warheads? Shouldn't you have said that " a right wing American website claims that Polish troops may have found evidence that some Iraqi defenders were looking to purchase some Sarin"? Hardly the same thing is it?

Is that as bad as all the 2000lb bombs dropping on Iraqi towns right now? I think not.

Darkstar
11-11-2004, 02:59:30
So, you think FoxNews website made it up? Curious. With the dates, we can go hunt through CNN and the BBC and see if they also carried the stories. I know CNN broadcast carried the stories, so there's a chance they put it on their web site. (I used FoxNews website as I figured they'd be too damn lazy to have archived those stories.)

You know, I bet the media is making up the story about fighting in the Iraq. I bet all those troops really were sent to the Bahamas, and told if they keep the secret, they will get another nice vacation to the Bahamas when the media fakes the invasion of Syria.

Darkstar
11-11-2004, 03:01:31
Hey, I hope you got a license from SP to use his quote, Protein. If not, you'd might want to talk about some cross licensing. ;)

The Mad Monk
11-11-2004, 03:17:30
Originally posted by Darkstar
Hell, Russia is missing several dozen suitcase sized nuclear bombs. Sold off to the black market, according to Russia's own security investigators. Where are those? They won't *destroy* a city the size of London or New York, Protien, but they'll fuck up a good sized chunk of it.

The one piece of good news there is that the explosive triggers in those things have gone past their "USE BY" dates.

Sir Penguin
11-11-2004, 03:19:51
Originally posted by Darkstar
Hey, I hope you got a license from SP to use his quote, Protein. If not, you'd might want to talk about some cross licensing. ;)
It's OK, I stole it from another forum. :)

SP

Darkstar
11-11-2004, 03:27:57
Sir Penguin...

I work on the Redstone Arsenal. That's the Army facility that was selected to hold the NASA site, Marshall Space Flight Center.

Before NASA was assigned to Redstone, it was primarily an Ammo and WMD storage and disposal facility. Do you know how they disposed of WMD back in the early 20th century? The same way they disposed of old normal ordiance. They buried it. And they didn't keep very good records for most of the early disposals. Makes it hell on them to find the leaking bits. Which they know are leaking because some of it has gotten into the local water on base.

Straight up.

Darkstar
11-11-2004, 03:32:32
Originally posted by Sir Penguin
It's OK, I stole it from another forum. :)

You stole it... FROM HELLOKITTY!

Man, are you in trouble! She gives Texas Chili Bowls to people that steal from her!

Oerdin
11-11-2004, 06:28:43
Originally posted by Chris
Yes it does, clueless people can't understand why they lose election after election, so the answer to them is the opposition is dumb.

Loose election after election? In the last 12 years we've won half of the Presidential elections.

Asher
11-11-2004, 06:30:40
How does that work, with 3 elections in 12 years?

Or is this a PhD or own goal?

Oerdin
11-11-2004, 06:32:14
Easy, 1992 to 2004. You do the math.

Asher
11-11-2004, 06:38:40
The election in 1992 is slightly over 12 years from now.

My math is done in floating point, and yours is clearly done with integers.

Shining1
11-11-2004, 13:29:18
I normally think of 4 elections in 12 years, though. That's certainly to within better accuracy than 3...

And is it just me, or does Darkstar sound even more of a nut than usual about this election and it's related subjects. Shit, not even the president or the prime minister have tried to argue that there were WMD in Iraq now that the truth on that has come to light.

Funkodrom
11-11-2004, 13:30:56
I don't know, I haven't been reading what he's been saying.

Shining1
11-11-2004, 13:32:45
Probably a good move. He's being very representative of the section of the electorate in question, certainly.

Darkstar
11-11-2004, 17:04:52
Yep. The majority of Americans. Scary thing, isn't it?

Well, Chris and Venom and myself.

And the next time someone steals something from you people, remember... it wasn't really stealing, cause it wasn't MASS amounts of stealing, by your own semantics and principles you are arguing from. Its best if you people never bitch one word about people misusing their/there or its/it's or any of that other realities. And this means... hey, Ash, you really do drive the best car! You finally won that argument! Congrats! After all, numbers and facts and precision have nothing to do with anything, right? That's the point that is being claimed in this thread. Here's a couple of examples for some of you to try in the future:
* "Well, 2 cigarrettes don't make a pack! So you didn't find any cigarrettes in my bedroom Mom!"
*"But officer, it's only 9 little roaches of pot! That's not a joint! You cannot arrest me for that!"

Will work great, won't it?

Hey! Venom! It's not assault if you just hit them in the head a couple of time with a baseball bat or pool cue! And we've got proof it's not assault if you kick them in their balls (as its such a small amount of body)! Want a fun vacation?

Funkodrom
11-11-2004, 17:09:14
A small majority of the registered voters who bothered to vote.

And I have no idea what you are tripping about in the rest of your post.

Japher
11-11-2004, 17:10:37
Preach on DS :D

Immortal Wombat
11-11-2004, 17:12:26
Lets have some fair analogies

* Young man, I've found some paper and glue in your room - you could have used that to construct cigarettes! (given some tobacco)

* Yes officer, I do have some marajuana seeds, but you see, I can't afford any soil due to UN sanctions on me.

Japher
11-11-2004, 17:15:47
Officer: than why do you have all this money?

Young Man: oh that? that from UN sanctioned moeny that I am suppose to be spending on food and education programs

Officer: than why are all your ppl starving and all your people going to school are in america on work visas

Young man: I haven't violated ANY UN SANCTION!!! (crap, didn't kill enough people to hide that)

Officer: What?!

Young Man: Uh, you gotta warrent?

Darkstar
11-11-2004, 17:34:10
Mine were fair analogies, Wombat. There's been plenty found. Not "a bit of paper to roll with", but a few loosies scattered about. They were old and stale, but they were still there.

Now, we were *told* that there were these stockpiles there. In our cigarette analogy, that would be a few cartons. Did we find cartons? Hell no. Did we find many loose packs lieing about? Definately not. We've found a few loosies, and the remains of a few packs (the paper and cellaphane wrappings). If that is the justification for going in, then we were wrong to have done so, weren't we (based on hindsight)?

Now, I do not know what was told to you non-Americans about why "we, the right thinking people of the Western world" had to go beat down Saddam. Here, we were told he's a freaking growing threat that has stockpiles of nasty stuff (false) that he is happy to use (true) or happy to sell (true) to others, that he is attempting to make more (true, but he was still in the early stages), that he does nasty things to his people and we shouldn't allow it any more (true, but a moral justification thrown in to try and make the Humanists types feel like they shouldn't oppose it), and that having a successful democracy in the middle east will really put a serious burr up the bunghole of all the regions dictators and oligraphies to help pressure them in such places as Iran to become a modern democracy and a modern society.

Now, those reasons don't make for good sound bites, so it was usually summed as "for Oil" or "for WMD".

Funkodrom
11-11-2004, 17:35:09
Originally posted by Japher
Officer: than why do you have all this money?

Young Man: oh that? that from UN sanctioned moeny that I am suppose to be spending on food and education programs

Officer: than why are all your ppl starving and all your people going to school are in america on work visas

Young man: I haven't violated ANY UN SANCTION!!! (crap, didn't kill enough people to hide that)

Officer: What?!

Young Man: Uh, you gotta warrent?

Officer: No, but I'm going to blow up your house and everyone inside it anyway. You will then be free to elect your own government to decide who gets that money.

Japher
11-11-2004, 17:37:05
Actually Funko it's:

Yes, but I'm going to blow up your house and everyone inside it anyway. You will then be free to elect your own government to decide who gets that money.

Darkstar
11-11-2004, 17:46:50
Originally posted by Funkodrom
A small majority of the registered voters who bothered to vote.

And I have no idea what you are tripping about in the rest of your post.

Small majority? Dude, you are buying into the leftist side on that... the greater majority voted. There are 300 million americans, but that isn't an ADULT only figure. The rough figures are that 75% of those legal to vote, voted. Not "those who bothered" but the majority of the nation.

And the majority of that majority, choose to give Bushie 4 more years. Why? Cause the majority think things are pretty decent here. "Could things be better? Hell yeah! Could they be worse? Hell yeah! So, let it go on as is, or take a gamble that someone else can make it better? Fuck no!" That was the vote.

But hey! Maybe you'll feel better after an extremist group melts down a nuclear reactor in France because France schools don't allow Muslim head-scarves. And that's got nothing to do with anything the UK or the US has done, right? There's already been 2 different terror cells caught who had that as their major plan. Guess eventually a cell will not get caught...

Darkstar
11-11-2004, 17:49:27
Originally posted by Funkodrom
Officer: No, but I'm going to blow up your house and everyone inside it anyway. You will then be free to elect your own government to decide who gets that money.

Dude! That's classic military thinking!

"To save Paris, we've got to blow it up. Prepare the bombardment!"

But, we use that principle in other places. Like health. You've got a cancer tumor. So we are going use a range of attacks to destroy it. These methods should kill it off, and leave you mostly alive to recover.

Shining1
11-11-2004, 22:21:30
Jesus Christ Paul, just shut the fuck up.

Funkodrom
12-11-2004, 10:11:08
Do you just make your information up Darkstar? 60 million ish votes for Bush 55 million ish for Kerry.

Here's the figures (there's even a picture to make it easy for you)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/results.htm

(even Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137463,00.html) agrees.

I fail to see how 60 million out of 300 million is a huge majority.

Turnout was 60% of potential electors - a great turnout for a US election. Close elections always get big turnouts.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
12-11-2004, 10:20:28
DS is jerking off like he had no wank since the 16th century.

The Mad Monk
12-11-2004, 10:21:10
Originally posted by Funkodrom
A small majority of the registered voters who bothered to vote.

And I have no idea what you are tripping about in the rest of your post.

Anyone who didn't vote has no say, and doesn't count.

The Mad Monk
12-11-2004, 10:21:36
..."Paul"?

The Mad Monk
12-11-2004, 10:34:53
The number of people who did vote was certainly statistically large enough to resonably predict who the non-voter would have voted for, had they voted. Unless you want to buy into the idea that the political left doen't vote as often as the right to such large degree as would be needed to turn the majority around -- and don't go off on "60,000 in Ohio", I'm talking the national maojrity here -- in which case I would have to ask, does the left not vote because they don't care enough, or because they're not smart enough?

Funkodrom
12-11-2004, 10:53:18
My point, my only point, is that it was a close contest that Bush won, not a huge win by a massive majority which Darkstar was suggesting.

Also the fact that a majority of a majority of a majority voted for something != a majority voted for something

The Mad Monk
12-11-2004, 15:53:25
It doen't?

What's the confidence of a 60% sample of anything?

The Bursar
12-11-2004, 16:04:51
Confidence is irrelevant. That would be testing what the other 40% would have voted for, not did vote for. Which they didn't.

The Mad Monk
12-11-2004, 16:06:15
If confidence is irrelevent, why is it used?

The Bursar
12-11-2004, 16:08:45
In counting votes?

Dyl Ulenspiegel
12-11-2004, 16:09:14
"The Florida method"

The Mad Monk
12-11-2004, 16:09:20
In statistics.

The Bursar
12-11-2004, 16:10:24
Funko isn't arguing statistics, he's saying that the majority of the country didn't vote for Bush.

The Mad Monk
12-11-2004, 16:11:35
In any case, it wasn't a majority of a majority, it was a majority, period.

Anybody who didn't vote, doesn't matter.

The Bursar
12-11-2004, 16:12:33
They do matter if the number you're looking for is the number of people who voted as a percentage of the population.

The Mad Monk
12-11-2004, 16:15:37
Originally posted by The Bursar
Funko isn't arguing statistics, he's saying that the majority of the country didn't vote for Bush.

The implication being that they wouldn't have voted for Bush had they voted (before you tell me that isn't the implication, I will tell you that's the way it has always been used around here when it's been brought up); I am trying show that that would be an incorrect inference.

The Mad Monk
12-11-2004, 16:18:05
Originally posted by The Bursar
They do matter if the number you're looking for is the number of people who voted as a percentage of the population.

Only in that case.

Anyone who had an opportunity to vote, and decided they had better things to do, has nothing to complain about as far as I am concerned.

Funkodrom
12-11-2004, 16:27:30
That's irrelevant. If people say "a majority of Americans voted for Bush" they are factually incorrect.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
12-11-2004, 16:30:45
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
The implication being that they wouldn't have voted for Bush had they voted

Ah, a Rightwinger in desperate search for enemy bias...

:beer:

The Mad Monk
12-11-2004, 16:31:37
Since when do facts matter in politics?

Funkodrom
12-11-2004, 16:32:49
Ah, now I see why you voted Republican.

The Mad Monk
12-11-2004, 16:33:01
When people walk up and say 51% of a vote is not a majority, Dyl, I don't have to search.

The Mad Monk
12-11-2004, 16:33:58
Originally posted by Funkodrom
Ah, now I see why you voted Republican.

:beer:

Funkodrom
12-11-2004, 16:36:00
This only started because Darkstar laughed at my claim that 51% was a small majority. ;)

Dyl Ulenspiegel
12-11-2004, 16:43:48
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
When people walk up and say 51% of a vote is not a majority

The sad thing is, I really believe you do not get it.

zmama
13-11-2004, 09:59:20
Hey, you know what, you are right and I am wrong, thanks!!

Darkstar
13-11-2004, 11:07:36
Mad Monk, Funko is correct.

The majority of all Americans did not vote for Bush. The majority of Americans that voted in the presidential elections in 2004, voted for Bush.

It is factually correct to say that the majority of Americans that cast a vote for President, voted for Bush. Or a majority of those who voted, voted for Bush.

Numerically speaking, out of the total potential voter pool, the number of votes cast for a candidate is very likely under the 50.1% point. The actual numbers of what that potential pool figure should be is still being debated in places too nerdy to mention here.

zmama
13-11-2004, 11:19:07
Originally posted by zmama
Hey, you know what, you are right and I am wrong, thanks!!

The Mad Monk
13-11-2004, 11:26:34
:(

The Mad Monk
13-11-2004, 11:28:00
I'm done.

Darkstar
13-11-2004, 11:36:43
For what? you can be anal in stick in the extra couple words, Mad Monk. Or you could give a civics lesson on democracy, and how it works, if you like. IIRC, most of the euroes have stated that they never bother voting. So it's not like if they were US Citizens, they'd have bothered to vote or anything. ;)

zmama
13-11-2004, 11:38:32
You have poor recall, then

Darkstar
13-11-2004, 11:42:25
My recall is better then the average human's (if any of that standardized testing is actually correct). But I could easily have forgotten a few of the posters.

Why, do you have it written down for each of the Euroes?

zmama
13-11-2004, 11:47:05
yes

Darkstar
13-11-2004, 11:48:32
So you are admitting you are RC, again?

zmama
13-11-2004, 11:49:37
Of course!

Would you like to hear more about tar sands in Alberta?

Darkstar
13-11-2004, 11:50:48
Hell yeah! That's sounds great! Who can't stand to hear more about tar sands in Alberta?

Vincent
13-11-2004, 11:51:10
I can't

Darkstar
13-11-2004, 11:52:00
Hush Vincent. We are done dancing. Now is time for the nappy sleepy by tale!

Dyl Ulenspiegel
13-11-2004, 14:32:04
Originally posted by Darkstar
My recall is better then the average human's

Different. Definately different.

zmama
13-11-2004, 16:20:25
He's special

Dyl Ulenspiegel
13-11-2004, 16:37:21
YAAAAY!!!

Asher
13-11-2004, 18:18:35
Originally posted by zmama
Of course!

Would you like to hear more about tar sands in Alberta?
I would.

zmama
13-11-2004, 18:23:29
They're sticky and tarry

protein
01-03-2005, 12:39:05
:shoot: